August 17, 2013


A.J. Cameron

For those living in KS, (or if you know of people who may live in any of these 32 KS cities, please contact them), we need to stand up to the U. N. Agenda 21 goal of destroying our borders and our republic.

Sadly, 10 of the 32 mayors who signed onto this letter, advocating for rewarding unlawful actions, and advancing Agenda 21, are w/in the metro area.

A. J.


Please call at least one of these 32 Kansas mayors who signed a letter (see below) to the state's congressional delegation urging passage of something that seems obviously to be like that of the giant amnesty and immigration increase passed by the Senate in June.

In the letter, the mayors:

  • support amnesty for illegal alien lawbreakers
  • support an increase in foreign workers when 20 million Americans (who are disproportionately Black and Hispanic) can't find a full-time job
  • reject allowing local officials to enforce immigration laws, something that is essential if American workers are to be protected from never-ending waves of illegal foreign workers.

Van Esser of our staff (a former official of a national association of state legislators) put the information together for this alert and noted:

"The letter, organized by Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and Lenexa Mayor Mike Boehm, is similar to one sent to the congressional delegation earlier this summer by the Kansas Business Coalition for Immigration Reform. As such it is clear these mayors are doing the bidding of business groups seeking more cheap labor.

"These 32 mayors need to hear protests from Kansans like you who stand with Kansas workers. Please make sure your mayor on this list (and perhaps others, too) gets a phone call from you protesting his/her insensitivity to the needs of the Kansas people."

Van has provided a sample phone message that you will find below.

Van also writes that if your mayor is not on the list, please consider thanking him/her for not signing the letter. An alternate message that you can use for these mayors is also provided below.

Set the Mayors Straight

Look for your mayor on this list and make the phone call.

Chances are that these mayors figured they could do the bidding of business lobbyists and open-borders leftists without the citizens of Kansas finding out.

Make sure they learn that they can't sell out the interests of the Kansas people without some pushback.


ABILENE: John F. Ray (P: 785-263-2550)
ALTAMONT: Herbert Bath (P: 620-784-5612)
BELLE PLAINE: Vicki Howell (P: 620-488-3433)

BUHLER: Daniel P. Friesen (P: 620-543-2253)
CANTON: Brad Smiley (P: 620-628-4916)
CHETOPA: Ron Wood (P: 620-236-7511)

COLDWATER: Penny Bruckner (Phone: 620-582-2940)
EDWARDSVILLE: John "Tiny" McTaggart, (P: 913- 441-3707)
FAIRWAY: Jerry Wiley (P: 913-262-0350 x5201)

GARDNER: Chris Morrow (P: 913-856-0939)
KANSAS CITY: Mark R. Holland, Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County/Kansas City (P: 913-573-5010)
LAKE QUIVIRA: Wayne Hidalgo (P: 913-631-5300)

LENEXA: Michael Boehm (P: 913-477-7550)
LEOTI: Lori Christensen (P: 620-375-2341)
MARION: Mary Olson (P: 620-382-3703)

MARYSVILLE: William L Phillipi (P: 785-562-5331)
MISSION HILLS: Richard T. Boeshaar (P: 913-362-9620)
MOUNDRIDGE: Gary W. Fisher (P: 620-345-8246)

MOUNT HOPE: Terry Somers (P: 316-661-2211)
OSAGE CITY: Quintin Robert (P: 785-528-5120)
OSWEGO: Glenn Fischer (P: 620-795-4433)

OVERLAND PARK Carl Gerlach (P: 913-895-6000)
RUSSELL: Raymond C. Mader (P: 785-483-6311)
SALINA: Barb Shirley (P: 785-309-5700)

SHAWNEE: Jeff Meyers (P: 913-268-5133)
STAFFORD: Dennis Bronson (P: 620-234-5011)
STOCKTON: Kim Thomas (P: 785-425-6703)

SYRACUSE: Joe Stephens (P: 620-384-7818)
TOPEKA: Larry E. Wolgast (P: 785-368-3895)
WESTWOOD HILLS: Paula L. Schwach (P: 913 262-6622)

WICHITA: Carl Brewer (P: 316-268-4331)
WOODBINE: Bart Hettenbach (P: 785-257-3359)

The clear intent of sending the letter at this time is to further the goal of nearly every business lobby in the country to persuade the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives to allow Speaker Boehner to bring the Senate's giant amnesty and immigration increase to the House floor for a vote.

If any of these mayors protests that they didn't mean to support legalizing 11 million illegal aliens or to suggest that the House pass the Senate bill, ask them to post on their website that they have withdrawn their support for the letter.

With that public announcement by them, NumbersUSA will remove their name from the list of open-borders politicians that Kansans should be calling regularly.


Dear Kansas Senators and Representatives:

As mayors of Kansas communities of every size, we are deeply concerned about the immigration problem that continues to plague our state and nation.

We are encouraged that the immigration issue has been advanced for congressional debate, offering some hope that a federal solution to this problem can be achieved.

We share the concerns of the Kansas Business Coalition for Immigration Reform regarding the need to protect our economy and workforce. The immigrant population of Kansas includes valued members of our community. We are supportive of a solution that allows reasonable access to citizenship while assuring adequate border security.

We also urge Congress to pay close attention to the impact of any immigration reform on local governments. The risk of unintended consequences is always present in any major national initiative. Any immigration legislation generated by Congress, cannot burden local governments with extra law enforcement or administrative burdens. This federal problem needs a federal solution paid for with federal resources.

Federal legislation should not erode effective community policing programs that have created an atmosphere of trust between law enforcement and the immigrant population. That relationship is absolutely essential for maintaining public safety while assimilating the immigrant population into our communities.

With those concerns addressed, a federal solution to our immigration problem would be a welcome change that will allow our economies to grow while protecting the quality of life of our citizens.


"I am upset that you signed a letter asking our congressional delegation to support amnesty for illegal aliens and the importation of more foreign workers."

"The letter also wrongly supports community policing policies that give sanctuary to illegal aliens."

"It is unconscionable to support legalizing illegal aliens or increasing foreign job competition at a time when 20 million Americans, who are disproportionately Black and Hispanic, can't find a full-time job."

"Rejecting local assistance in immigration-law enforcement is counterproductive if American workers are to be protected from never-ending waves of illegal foreign workers."

"Your letter makes it clear that you stand with businesses seeking cheap foreign labor, not the American worker. You should be ashamed."


(Van explains how you can look up the numbers of these mayors: "You can look up phone numbers for those mayors by clicking here:

(The link is a directory of Kansas officials provided by the League of Kansas Municipalities. The link takes you to page for Wichita, where one of letter organizers (Carl Brewer) is mayor, but you can use the "Select City" pull down menu to find your city and get contact information.")

Here's a model of the message you might give on the phone:

"I was upset to read that 32 Kansas mayors signed a letter asking our congressional delegation to support amnesty for illegal aliens and the importation of more foreign workers. Thank you for not being one of the signatories."

"It is unconscionable for those 32 mayors to support legalizing illegal aliens or increasing foreign job competition at a time when 20 million Americans, who are disproportionately Black and Hispanic, can't find a full-time job."

"Those 32 mayors should be ashamed for helping businesses obtain more cheap foreign labor. Please continue to stand with the American worker."

roy beck
Thu, Aug 15th
Moved? Update your address information.

Switched to another e-mail address? Change your e-mail address online.
Sign up for text message action alerts, and you'll receive a text message with instructions for action only when an urgent action is needed.
Take our interests survey. Let us know what you're interested in so we can customize actions and other information to meet your needs.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1342 words, total size 12 kb.

Data Mining Children with Common Core

A.J. Cameron

More on the corruption w/in Common Core! As w/ everything w/in Agenda 21, this legislates a monopoly for the evil illuminati, while suppressing the great unwashed.

Diane Kepus -- Data Mining: Cha-Ching, Cha-Ching

"Not only is the Common Core Standards about "dumbing down” our children under the guise of bringing them up, but it is all about Power, Control and especially Money!

While many Americans worry about government drones in the sky spying on our private lives, NSA wire tapping our phones, Washington meddlers are already on the ground and in our schools gathering intimate data on children and families."

Read the whole article!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

Rosslyn Smith's point about Oprah - and mine

Jack Kemp

Rosslyn Smith, writing in American Thinker, ; has made the point that Oprah Winfrey has always played to the middle class and gave the impression that she could be Middle America's friendly best female friend and neighbor next door. Now, by taking this hard edged interpretation about white people - including the Swiss clerk in the upscale store who allegedly insulted her - which states (I'm paraphrasing here) that all white people are essentially racists underneath a polite front.

Smith has made a wise observation, but she has left out a major fact, namely that this attitude shift happened years ago - and cost Oprah her big audience on broadcast tv. I contend that it started to unravel for Oprah when she supported Obama, the first candidate she ever publicly endorsed and kept endorsing as early as 2008-2009. White American women probably figured years ago that Oprah most likely supported Democrats, but she never beat her audience over the head with it, so to speak. It is no mere coincidence after Oprah publicly endorsed Obama and Obama kept bashing every white from his "typical white grandmother" to the "stupid" Cambridge police officer that the tv syndicates cancelled her show on broadcast tv. The politically conservative half of her audience felt betrayed, in my opinion (and several other writers' opinion) and they stopped watching Oprah who no longer could be imagined to be their tv best female friend. Oprah's ratings on her own (costly) network can't be anywhere near as high as they were on broadcast stations (was it NBC?) years ago.

What is the difference between Oprah and fellow Democrat media star Michael Jordan of Chicago Bulls fame? Michael Jordan doesn't think he is a social change agent out to politically "make a difference" by lecturing America. Jordan's personal successes, however, clearly leave a mark on our culture that reflects well on black people but Michale Jordan doesn't think he is the Democrat version of Frederick Douglass (a Republican). Oprah is starting to think and talk as if she is Harriet Tubman or Sojourner Truth - which she clearly is not.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:35 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.

August 16, 2013

NAACP Now Calls Rodeo Clown Gag a "Hate Crime"

Timothy Birdnow

The head of the local chapter of the NAACP in MIssouri is demanding the State Fair Rodeo Clown incident be treated as a hate crime.

According to KMOX in St. Louis:

"The President of the Missouri Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) says a rodeo clown act depicting President Barack Obama at the Missouri State Fair Saturday night was a hate crime.

"I think that a hate crime occurred,” Mary Ratliff told KXNT Radio in Las Vegas Thursday. ”I think a hate crime occurs when you use a person’s race to depict who they are and to make degrading comments, gestures, et cetera, against them.” '

End excerpt.

Also from the article:

"U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-St. Louis, said he was "amazed that in 2013 such hatred, intolerance and disrespect towards the President of the United States could take place at the Missouri State Fair.”'


"Missouri Rep. Steve Webb, D-Florissant, said he was "incensed” and referred to the incident’s racial undertones in a statement Monday.

"Sometimes apologies just won’t do. While I do not believe this represents all of rural Missouri, the racial undertones of a taunted rodeo clown dressed as our nation’s first black president is what the nation woke up to this morning,” Webb said.

State Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, D-St. Louis, called the event "racist and degrading.” Rep. Gail McCann Beatty, D-Kansas City, added, "I am angered and disgusted by the blatant racism that was displayed at the Missouri State Fair.”

End excerpts.

This has become beyond ridiculous.

Meanwhile, does anyone remember Obama wearing a mask of himself?

Or how about these:

Bush was mocked in this fashion in '94.

I guess it's a matter of whose Ox is gored. The Democrats, who mocked George W. Bush relentlessly and wrote books fantasizing about his assassination, seem to have a different opinion now that their guy is taking some mockery.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:26 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 3 kb.

Obama's Stoogemania

Timothy Birdnow

Today in the American Spectator there is an article by a former professional clown about the profession - and about the comic value of faux violence.

After a telling story about Joseph Stalin having circus clowns executed on the spot for making obligue uncomplimentary references to his august self the author goes on to say:

"My experience informs me that nothing brings a bigger laugh than cartoon violence inflicted on the performer. Many a roar of guffaws I elicited by SMACKING! the floor with a prat fall, BANGING! my noggin with a hammer, CRASHING! off a chair onto my kiester, SHOOTING! my face with a hunting rifle (filled with water, and sundry other self-inflicted assaults, KABOOM! smoking my exploding cigar. HA HA HA! Universal and timeless humor.

The audiences, mostly kids age 5 to 10 (the older ones were too cool, the younger ones ran away from me in screaming horror) loved the gags. Adults too.

Were my stunts code words to the audience to commit violence? It’s true that many a seven-year-old boy felt free to throw a fork or pizza slice at me, and on occasion land a hefty punch in the crown jewels, but for the most part, the response was a cathartic laughter. And often, I was touched by the little child who’d hug my leg and say "I love you, Mr. Clown!”

End excerpt.

This brings up an interesting point; people love fake violence as humor. Consider the Three Stooges; people do not seek to murder fat bald men because Moe slaps Curly around. No. Instead, we laugh our heads off as Curly gets his eyes poked out by his bully brother. And most people are secretly pulling for Curly, hoping he takes a whack at Moe at some point.

As I have stated repeatedly, this is the fifth rule of Alinsky in play; they cannot allow Obama to be ridiculed. Everyone LAUGHS at a Stooge, and they may love them but they do not respect them. Nobody would have elected Curly, Larry, or Moe (or Shemp, Joe, or Curly-Joe) to high office.

To quote the movie Stoogemania "nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, woo, woo, woo, I'm not a stooge and neither are you!" But maybe Barack Obama is one. He seems desperate to avoid that.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

George Gilder dissects the Planned Economy

Jack Kemp

An interview today with author George Gilder about his latest book "Wealth and Poverty," puts the lie to state planning by showing that even computer systems need what Robert Turing called "an oracle' - a human being - to understand and use the rigid structures of a closed system - which is essentially a tool - in new and creative ways. In a human society, those oracles of economics are entrepeneurs. And Gilder also states that conservative as well as leftist economists have fallen into this trap of seeing the economy as an electro-mechanical machine only. He also discusses families as as an essential part of the stable platform that a society builds its creative innovations upon.

I'll give you the link to the article and include a few quotes.

George Gilder Has A Very Big, Economy Boosting Idea
Jerry Bowyer | Aug 16, 2013

...In fact, I suspect that it may be the most important economics book of the 21st century. I had the pleasure of sitting across a Skype connection with Gilder at the other end at a Discovery Institute conference. To listen to the interview which ran almost a full hour, click here. For a partial transcription of the interview, read what’s below and the remaining two articles in the series.

Jerry: "First, let’s start off with the major question. Every great book has a big idea; what’s your big idea?

What’s the big idea in Knowledge and Power?”

George: "That capitalism is chiefly a knowledge system, rather than an incentive system. After all, when the Neanderthal in his cave had the same set of physical appetites and natural resources that we have today — the difference between our lives and the lives of Stone Age penury is the growth of knowledge, which is a process of learning which depends on falsifiable experiments. A great result of the research in Knowledge and Power is that crony capitalism necessarily fails because it thwarts the emergence of knowledge. Knowledge comes from experiments that can either succeed or fail. If they’re guaranteed ahead of time, information theory tells us that they cannot yield real profit; any profit they yield is extorted from the rest of us.”

Jerry: "So, perhaps moral objections to crony capitalism – the unfairness of it – are true, but beside the main point. Crony capitalism makes us stupider.”

George: "Yeah, that’s right. A sure way to stultify an economy is to separate the knowledge which is in all our heads, dispersed around the world with each person with a different perspective and set of skills, from the power to actually carry through these experiments of enterprise. Power is centripetal, it tends to go to the people with guns in Washington, and knowledge is dispersed. What makes an economy work is the alignment of knowledge and power.”

..."Yeah. And the crisis of our time is epitomized by heavily subsidized and guaranteed leviathans, like Goldman Sachs, Archer Daniels Midland, Harvard University, or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They’re all these gigantic institutions who essentially depend on government guarantees.”

...The big mistake of most economics is it tries to parlay a theory of transactions into an entire economy, but what really makes the economy work is creativity, and creativity always comes as a surprise to us. If it didn’t, planning socialism would work. We wouldn’t need creativity. But the essence of creativity is surprise; it’s the unexpected product. My big discovery was that we already have a whole apparatus of mathematics and theory called Information Theory, which defines information itself as surprise. Information, according to Claude Shannon, the real founder of information theory, is unexpected bets.

Jerry: "So the market system is the operating system at best, but it’s not the user. That the entrepreneur uses an operating system called the market economy: there’s hardware to it, there’re rails and canals and buildings and factories; there’s software to it, in the sense that there’s operating system software equivalent to DOS or Windows or Linux or whatever, but that thing just lies there dormant until a user sits down at the keyboard and starts changing things, and that user’s the entrepreneur.”

...George: "That’s right. That’s well put. The way I put it is: Main Street and Silicon Valley want long-term monetary stability, they want to be able to make long-term bets on companies that last years and decades – Wall Street — and for this they want a guaranteed legal structure so that the upsides, when they come, can be protected. What Wall Street likes, a lot of the time, is volatility and instability, and they want the downsides protected by government guarantees. That’s why there is this tension between Wall Street and Main Street and Silicon Valley, and why I think one of the tragedies of the recent era has been Silicon Valley’s defection to the government side; Silicon Valley now is oriented toward getting government guarantees for their green projects.”

Jerry: "I think you said once, "It’s covered with green goo.””

George: "Yeah, that’s green goo. Another way is, "Silicon Valley is sicklied o’er by a pale cast of green goo,” is the way I put it in the book, I believe.”

Jerry: "It’s a shame. That’s a lot of talent wasted.”

George: "It’s a tremendous talent. As Forbes has calculated, a fifth of all GDP and close to 70% of corporate market cap in America comes from companies launched by venture capitalists.”


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 916 words, total size 6 kb.

Soviet America and Boomerang Kids

Timothy Birdnow

Fewer young adults are moving out of their parent's homes, according to CNN Money.!

According to the article:

"Not only do these boomerang kids think it's okay to hunker down with mom and dad, but many of them are actually doing so. Trulia recently released a survey showing that 44% of jobless 18 to 34 year-olds live with their parents, while nearly a quarter of those with jobs have yet to leave the nest."


"New household formation, which measures the growth of homes occupied by either owners or renters, has plunged to an annual average of about 550,000 between 2007 and 2011. That's far fewer than the annual average of 1.35 million during the previous five years.

The lag has contributed to a "persistent weakness in the housing market," wrote economist Andrew Paciorek in a Federal Reserve paper."

End excerpts.

This is interesting in a number of ways.

First, anyone who remembers the old Soviet Union knows that several generations of a family often resided in the same coldwater flat. This was a necessity as the Soviet Communist system was so abyssmal in creating wealth or producing adequately for the material needs of the public. Anyone remember the movie Doctor Zhivago? His family winds up living in just two rooms of what was once their private home, with a dozen other families occupying other rooms after the Party "liberated" the house. They were grateful too; the others got only one room apiece.

Communists like people living on top of each-other. The one thing any leftist detests is down-time for people, time for people to think and reflect. Collectivist by nature, they want the populace crammed into close quarters so they can be influenced by the herd, who are in turn influenced by THEM. There are greater social pressures on the individual who is living cheek by jowel with neighbors.

It's why they built the big housing projects back in the '50's and '60's; they wanted to stack people on top of each-other. It's why they are forever pushing "urban renewal" and trying to get the public to live in densely packed neighborhoods. It's why they seek to offer endless amusements in crowded stadiums or gathering places. It's why they push public transportation.

And, of course, a dense crowd is much easier to control.

When I was in college (back in the 1980's) my Russian teacher was a Soviet Jew (and her husband - a Polish one who was captured by the Russians and had to live in the gulag for a time) and she explained Soviet policy; the barest essentials of life were enormously time-consuming by design. A trip to the grocery store took at least four hours because of the monumental inefficiency. One had to wait in lline just to get into the store. Each department was behind a counter, and the shopper had to wait in line to be served. Once at the counter the shopper asked for his or her selection and was usually told it was out of stock, but they may perhaps get lucky or manage to get something comparable. They were then issued a purchase order and had to go to the checkout where they waited in line again to pay. Once they paid they were issued a receipt for the item and had to get back into the department line to actually be given the item. This occured with everything; dry goods, canned goods, dairy, meat, vegetables. It was monstrously inefficient.

By design, that was the whole point; the Soviets did not want the public to have any down-time to think treasonous thoughts. The entire society worked that way, and it sucked up all of the time that the individual had. When they went home they were crowded into tiny apartments with chaos and confusion to keep them from thinking.

It makes me wonder if this current "boomerang generation" is not by similar design.

Revolutions do not occur in poor places. The poor spend too much of their time and energy trying to survive. Revolutions occur in places that are reasonably prosperous. They occur in places that see rising expectations, or declining ones. The Left understand this, and know that managing American decline means battling declining expectations. The Surfs are likely to get uppity if that should occur. So the tried-and-true tactics (or at least the best they know of) must be employed.

This also serves a useful purpose in delaying maturity. The Democrats survive because their base does not accept the responsibilities of adulthood, but rather turns to the State to provide the things that mature men and women normally provide for themselves. To maintain power childhood must be extended, ideally indefinitely but that may not be possible. It is rather like what the Tsar wanted; to be seen as the father of his people (and that is why Marxism was able to take root so easily in Russia; the public had been so conditioned that they would accept an authority who promised to care for them as a father for his children.) Delaying maturity is a huge boon for leftists.

Diane West wrote "The Death of the Grownup" and made many of these very points.

So, when I hear about "boomerang kids" living at home until Andropause (or menopause) I remember that this was an old Soviet policy, one intended to keep the public docile. A bad economy, an educational system that teaches little beyond political correctness, a national culture of video games, vampire tales (fitting for a generation that sucks the life out of America), anonymous hookups, and general irresponsibility all contribute to a populace and electorate that is obedient and easily led. Kids must be fed their bread, their circuses, must not be allowed to actually learn or think or have time for introspection. Keep them busy, stuff them with food and drink, and control the dissemination of information and you have them.

It's pretty much the same way an animal is trained, except the human child is more clever and so requires a far greater degree of control.

In the end, CNN money thinks it is just fine for kids to leech off their parents in perpetuity. CNN is a part of the dominant media culture, a part of the machine to manage America's decline and to build the "Change" envisioned by our intellectual masters.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1066 words, total size 7 kb.

The Bull-y Pulpit; Violating a Naked Ned Beatty

Brian Birdnow

Thought you'd like to see this!:

In Defense of Tuffy Gessling, the "Obama Rodeo Clown"

In Defense of Tuffy Gessling, the "Obama Rodeo Clown"
By David Weigel
Posted Thursday, Aug. 15, 2013, at 9:48 AM

Is the mockery of President Obama at a state fiar over the weekend any worse than what George W. Bush routinely faced? Photo by Amanda Edwards/Getty Images

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Tom DeWeese commentary -- Putting bicycles ahead of people

Paul Driessen

This sad saga of raw power, collusion, government corruption, the seizure of private property – and worse – will get your blood boiling.

It will also give you, your readers, and your friends and colleagues a chance to step up to the plate … and DO something, make your voices heard, and maybe even undo this travesty – or at least ensure some measure of decency and justice for this Ohio family.

This should not happen in America. With your help, perhaps we can stop this injustice, ensure full and proper compensation, and prevent similar travesties in the future.

Putting bicycles ahead of people

Pressure groups and government officials are seizing property – with no accountability

Tom DeWeese

This is a story of raw power, collusion and government corruption. A story that is taking place in countless towns all over America. A story of "reinvented” government, where self-proclaimed private "stakeholders” and pressure groups set the rules, local elected officials rubber stamp them, and non-elected regional governments enforce them, sometimes with an iron fist – all with no input from citizens, and apparently no rights for private citizens and property owners to stop them or even have a say.

It’s the story of the destruction of private property rights in America. Of injustice and tyranny. Of unaccountable government run amok. We need to take action! (See below, in blue, for what you can do.)

Jennie Granato is a tax-paying citizen of Montgomery County, Ohio. She and her family own a 165-year-old historic house and farm just outside of Dayton. They’ve lived there forty years. On July 31, Jennie’s front yard was demolished – thanks to local, county and planning commission bureaucrats!

The Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC) has begun seizing people’s private property for its latest "essential” project – a $5-million bike path extension! It has seized almost all of Jennie’s front lawn. The bike path will come within just a few feet of her front door!

Jennie and her family tried for over a year to negotiate and reason with this unelected planning commission. Unfortunately, their neighbors were advised by lawyers not to say anything publicly about the pending land grab, so the media viewed it as a non-story. The county and its appraisers kept stalling, saying they wanted a meeting with Jennie, even as they ignored her pleas and offered a pittance for taking her front yard, and likely driving the value of her home down by tens of thousands of dollars.

The meeting never came – and officials didn’t even allow Jennie’s uncle to speak at a hearing. But the bulldozers certainly came! Last week, with no warning, they just started demolishing trees. Jennie and her family still own the property – BUT the county has barged in, torn out their trees and destroyed their front yard! They will never be able to walk out their front door again, without worrying that they will be run over by bicyclists roaring by at 10 or 20 miles per hour, just inches from their bottom step.

The government trucks and bulldozers also precipitated an even worse tragedy. Jennie’s 85 year old mother became so upset over seeing the government’s heavy machinery destroying her yard and favorite trees that she suffered a heart attack and died.

Of course the government refuses to accept any responsibility for this tragedy. It was just promoting the "public welfare” of the private "stakeholders” and pressure groups it works with.

That too has become far too common. The government and these groups want more and more control over our lives, more power to tell us what we can and cannot do with our property and lives. But they accept no transparency and no accountability, responsibility or liability when their actions hurt … or even kill … someone – or when they destroy the property values, peace and integrity of a home.

The MVRPC is an unelected regional government force driven by federal Sustainable Development grant money. It never faces voters over its actions or positions of seemingly unbridled power. It simply deals with other government agencies – local, state and federal – and with private groups like the American Planning Association, ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability, and a hoard of other organizations that represent faux "conservation and environmental” interests whose real motivation is money, and the power to control our lives.

They are "stakeholders” only in the sense that they want something – and are holding the stakes that their government friends are driving through the heart of our constitutional rights.

With the assistance of Federal and State grant programs and willing politicians, who see another way to build their own power and get elected over and over, they rule over us like unaccountable dictators. It’s the same story in nearly every community in our nation.

Neither Jennie nor any of her neighbors voted to institute the agency or its policies.

* There was no vote for this bike path.

* There was no referendum on the ballot to approve this project or the spending of their tax dollars.

Yet the MVRPC imposed itself on privately owned property, giving the owner no say in the matter and giving her a pittance in exchange for the land it is taking away. Soon, strangers on bikes will be crossing her land, passing within seven feet of her front door. And she fears there is nothing she can do about it.

How does she secure her home? How can she ever hope to sell it? Who will compensate her for the loss of value, now that her once lovely and private front lawn is gone? Certainly not the MVRPC.

My American Policy Center has warned Americans over and over about the dangers of this fraud called "Sustainable Development” – and the enforcement of top-down control through non-elected boards and regional governments. Here is that reality, in all of its outrageous raw power.

Jennie’s neighbors, property rights activists and Tea Party leaders are joining forces to support her fight to stop this outrage. They have gathered at the property, to protest and take the issue to the news media – and will do so again. To its credit, the media are finally starting to notice what is happening. But if that is the extent of it, you know full well that these government officials will simply laugh, ignore the protests and news stories, wait for the attention to go away, and then grab someone else’s property.

That’s why concerned citizens across the nation need to join this fight and put power behind this effort to stop these bureaucrats from taking Jennie’s property. Freedom fighters need to build a huge protest fire and turn this into a national property rights issue.

Corrupt government officials use taxpayers as doormats, pawns, bank accounts and land holders for their agendas and power plays. If we continue doing nothing to stem the rising tide of government tyranny and corruption, we will watch our rights and property disappear, one by one.

Here’s what you can do to help

As the local Dayton area residents do all they can with sign waving, demonstrations and protests to call attention to this blatant property theft, outraged Americans from across the country can bring an avalanche of phone calls and emails on the perpetrators – the scoundrels who think they can prey on any citizen without consequences. Make them feel heat for their actions!!

Click here for the names, phone numbers and emails of the Montgomery County, Ohio Commissioners, the Washington Township Board, and the members of the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission. Then call them and let them know what you think!

Americans concerned for their own liberties need to bury these officials in calls and emails of protest. We need to make these dictators and thieves aware that what they are doing is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. We need to inform them that We the People have rights, and will fight for them.

Let them know they have overstepped their bounds. Destroying a family’s home, property, civil rights, peace of mind, and a woman’s life – for something as unnecessary as a bike path – is an outrage.

But, as you make these calls – BE RESPECTFUL. There is still a hope that some official or judge will listen and take the proper action to stop this theft and destruction of Jennie’s land.

If we can win this fight for Jennie in Ohio, we will have the strength and momentum to help the next victims of government overreach. And make no mistake, there will be one. So don’t wait. Call them now.


Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy Center and author of the book "Now Tell Me I Was Wrong.”

The "construction limits” stake in this photo is less than 5 ft from the front wall of the Granato home. The "essential” bike path is just a foot from the sign, where the front yard used to be.

The plastic shows where the bike path will go – right up to the bottom step of the Granato home.


See jpg images of these photos

Heavy equipment tearing out the trees in front of the Granato home.

The magnolia and other trees largely gone. This is where the crew stopped briefly after Jennie Granato’s mother died of a heart attack.



4 Attached Images

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:46 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1573 words, total size 13 kb.

Carbon dioxide: The “gas of life”

Paul Driessen

Too many environmentalists, politicians and even scientists continue to vilify human emissions of carbon dioxide, asserting that this gas is causing dangerous manmade global warming and climate change. These claims ignore the dominant roles of complex natural forces in causing planetary warming, cooling, storms, droughts and other climate events. They also ignore the lack of evidence to support climate cataclysm predictions.

At least equally important, criticism of carbon dioxide ignores the vital role this miracle molecule plays in making life on Earth possible.

My article this week corrects that oversight, by chronicling the many ways higher concentrations of carbon dioxide foster plant growth, make our planet greener – and help us grow more nutritious food for more people, while reducing pressure on wildlife habitats and ensuring the survival of numerous plant and animal species whose habitats could otherwise be plowed under to feed humans.

Carbon dioxide: The "gas of life”

Tiny amounts of this miracle molecule make life on Earth possible

Paul Driessen

It’s amazing that minuscule bacteria can cause life-threatening diseases and infections – and miraculous that tiny doses of vaccines and antibiotics can safeguard us against these deadly scourges. It is equally incredible that, at the planetary level, carbon dioxide is a miracle molecule for plants – and the "gas of life” for most living creatures on Earth.

In units of volume, CO2’s concentration is typically presented as 400 parts per million (400 ppm). Translated, that’s just 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere – the equivalent of 40 cents out of one thousand dollars, or 1.4 inches on a football field. Even atmospheric argon is 23 times more abundant: 9,300 ppm. Moreover, the 400 ppm in 2013 is 120 ppm more than the 280 ppm carbon dioxide level of 1800, and that two-century increase is equivalent to a mere 12 cents out of $1,000, or one half-inch on a football field.

Eliminate carbon dioxide, and terrestrial plants would die, as would lake and ocean phytoplankton, grasses, kelp and other water plants. After that, animal and human life would disappear. Even reducing CO2 levels too much – back to pre-industrial levels, for example – would have terrible consequences.

Over the past two centuries, our planet finally began to emerge from the Little Ice Age that had cooled the Earth and driven Viking settlers out of Greenland. Warming oceans slowly released some of the carbon dioxide stored in their waters. Industrial Revolution factories and growing human populations burned more wood and fossil fuels, baked more bread, and brewed more beer, adding still more CO2 to the atmosphere. Much more of the miracle molecule came from volcanoes and subsea vents, forest fires, biofuel use, decaying plants and animals, and "exhaust” from living, breathing animals and humans.

What a difference that extra 120 ppm has made for plants, and for animals and humans that depend on them. The more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the more it is absorbed by plants of every description – and the faster and better they grow, even under adverse conditions like limited water, extremely hot air temperatures, or infestations of insects, weeds and other pests. As trees, grasses, algae and crops grow more rapidly and become healthier and more robust, animals and humans enjoy better nutrition on a planet that is greener and greener.

Efforts to feed seven billion people, and improve nutrition for more than a billion who are malnourished, are steadily increasing the tension between our need for land to feed humans – and the need to keep land in its natural state to support plants and wildlife. How well we are able to increase crop production from the same or less acreage may mean the difference between global food sufficiency and rampant human starvation in coming decades – and between the survival and extinction of many plant and animal species.

Modern agricultural methods steadily and dramatically improved crop yields per acre between 1930 and today. That is especially important if we continue to divert millions of acres of farmland from food crops, and convert millions of acres of rainforest and other wildlife habitat to cropland, for biofuel production to replace fossil fuels that we again have in abundance. Carbon dioxide will play a vital role in these efforts.

Increased CO2 levels in greenhouses dramatically improve plant growth, especially when temperatures are also elevated; rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have likewise had astounding positive impacts on outdoor plant growth and survival. Lentils and other legumes grown in hothouses with 700 ppm CO2 improved their total biomass by 91%, their edible parts yield by 150 % and their fodder yield by 67%, compared to similar crops grown at 370 ppm carbon dioxide, Indian researchers found.

Rice grown at 600 ppm CO2 increased its grain yield by 28% with low applications of nitrogen fertilizer, Chinese scientists calculated. U.S. researchers discovered that sugarcane grown in sunlit greenhouses at 720 ppm CO2 and 11 degrees F (6 degrees C) higher than outside ambient air produced stem juice an amazing 124% higher in volume than sugarcane grown at ambient temperature and 360 ppm carbon dioxide. Non-food crops like cotton also fare much better when carbon dioxide levels are higher.

Research into natural forest and crop growth during recent periods of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, between 1900 and 2010, found significant improvements under "real-world” conditions, as well.

An analysis of Scots pines in Catalonia, Spain showed that tree diameter and cross-sectional area expanded by 84% between 1900 and 2000, in response to rising CO2 levels. The growth of young Wisconsin trees increased by 60%, and tree ring width expanded by almost 53%, as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased from 316 ppm in 1958 to 376 ppm in 2003, researchers calculated.

University of Minnesota scientists compared the growth of trees and other plants during the first half of the twentieth century (which included the terrible Dust Bowl years), when CO2 levels rose only 10 ppm – to the period 1950-2000, when CO2 increased by 57 ppm. They found that carbon dioxide lowered plant sensitivity to severe drought and improved their survival rates by almost 50%. Swiss researchers concluded that, because of rising carbon dioxide levels, "alpine plant life is proliferating, biodiversity is on the rise, and the mountain world appears more productive and inviting than ever.”

Other researchers used historical (real-world) data for land use, atmospheric CO2 concentration, nitrogen deposition, fertilization, ozone levels, rainfall and climate, to develop a computer model that simulates plant growth responses for southern US habitats from 1895 to 2007. They determined that "net primary productivity” improved by an average of 27% during this 112-year period, with most of the increased growth occurring after 1950, when CO2 levels rose the most, from 310 ppm in 1950 to 395 ppm in 2007.

How does all this happen? Plants use energy from the sun to convert carbon dioxide from the air, and water and minerals from the soil, into the carbohydrates and other molecules that form plant biomass. More CO2 means more and larger flowers; higher seed mass and germination success; and improved plant resistance to droughts, diseases, viruses, pathogenic infections, air pollutants, and salt or nitrogen accumulation in soils. Higher CO2 levels also improve plants’ water use efficiency – ensuring faster and greater carbon uptake by plant tissues, with less water lost through transpiration.

More airborne CO2 lets plants reduce the size of their stomata, little holes in leaves that plants use to inhale carbon dioxide building blocks. When CO2 is scarce, the openings increase in size, to capture sufficient supplies of this "gas of life.” But increasing stomata size means more water molecules escape, and the water loss places increasing stress on the plants, eventually threatening their growth and survival.

When the air’s carbon dioxide levels rise – to 400, 600 or 800 ppm – the stomata shrink in size, causing them to lose less water from transpiration, while still absorbing ample CO2 molecules. That enables them to survive extended dry spells much better.

(The 2009 and 2011 volumes of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report, Climate Change Reconsidered, especially this section, and Dr. Craig Idso’s website summarize hundreds of similar studies of crops, forests, grasslands, alpine areas and deserts enriched by carbon dioxide. CO2 Science’s Plant Growth Database lets people search for more studies.)

One of the worst things that could happen to our planet and its people, animals and plants would be for carbon dioxide levels to plunge back to levels last seen before the Industrial Revolution. Decreasing CO2 levels would be especially problematical if Earth cools, in response to the sun entering another "quiet phase,” as happened during the Little Ice Age. If Earth cools again, growing seasons would shorten and arable cropland would decrease in the northern temperate zones. We would then need every possible molecule of carbon dioxide – just to keep agricultural production high enough to stave off mass human starvation … and save wildlife habitats from being plowed under to replace that lost cropland.

However, even under current Modern Warm Era conditions, crops, other plants, animals and people will benefit from more carbon dioxide. The "gas of life” is a miracle plant fertilizer that helps plants grow and prosper – greening the planet, nourishing wildlife habitats, feeding people who crave larger amounts of more nutritious food, preventing species loss, and even warming the Earth a little.

That is an amazing fete for a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas that comprises just 0.04 percent of our atmosphere! We should praise carbon dioxide – not vilify, ban or bury it.


Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. His full report on the magic and mystery of carbon dioxide can be found at 8/14/13

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1634 words, total size 11 kb.

Puns Intended

A.J. Cameron

Puns intended
1. Two antennas met on a roof, fell in love and got married.
The ceremony wasn't much, but the reception was excellent.

2. A set of jumper cables walk into a bar.
The bartender says, 'I'll serve you, but don't start anything.'

3. Two peanuts walk into a bar, and one was a salted.

4. A dyslexic man walks into a bra.

5. A man walks into a bar with a slab of asphalt under his arm, and says:
'A beer please, and one for the road.'

6. Two cannibals are eating a clown. One says to the other:
'Does this taste funny to you?'

7. 'Doc, I can't stop singing 'The Green, Green Grass of Home.'
'That sounds like Tom Jones Syndrome.'
'Is it common?'
'Well, It's Not Unusual.'

8. Two cows are standing next to each other in a field.
Daisy says to Dolly, 'I was artificially inseminated this morning.'
'I don't believe you,' says Dolly.
'It's true; no bull!' exclaims Daisy.

9. An invisible man marries an invisible woman.
The kids were nothing to look at either.

10. Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this bull before.

11. I went to buy some camouflage trousers the other day, but I couldn't find any.

12. A man woke up in a hospital after a serious accident.
He shouted, 'Doctor, doctor, I can't feel my legs!'
The doctor replied, 'I know you can't - I've cut off your arms!'

13. I went to a seafood disco last week...and pulled a mussel.

14. What do you call a fish with no eyes?
A fsh.

15. Two fish swim into a concrete wall.
One turns to the other and says, 'Dam!'

16. Two Eskimos sitting in a kayak were a bit cold, so they lit a fire in the craft.
It sank, proving once again that you can't have your kayak and heat it too.

17. A group of chess enthusiasts checked into a hotel.
They were standing in the lobby discussing their recent tournament victories.
After about an hour, the manager came out of the office, and asked them to
'But why?' they asked, as they moved off.
'Because,' he said, 'I can't stand chess-nuts boasting in an open foyer!'

18. A woman has twins, and gives them up for adoption.
One of them goes to a family in Egypt , and is named 'Ahmal.'
The other goes to a family in Spain; they name him 'Juan.'
Years later, Juan sends a picture of himself to his birth mother.
Upon receiving the picture, she tells her husband that she wishes she also had a picture of Ahmal.
Her husband responds, 'They're twins! If you've seen Juan, you've seen Ahmal.'

19. Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time,
Which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet.
He also ate very little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet,
he suffered from bad breath.
This made him (Oh, man, this is so bad, it's good) .
A super-calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.

20. And finally, there was the person who sent twenty different puns to his friends, with the hope that at least ten of the puns would make them laugh.
No pun in ten did.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:19 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.

August 15, 2013

Conservatism - All of the Cool Kids are Doing It

Timothy Birdnow

Writing in American Thinker the Drive-by Pundit rails against the GOP for being boring and uncool.

While I agree to a degree, I fear DBP is making the same mistake the GoP consulting class has made. He is advocating inauthenticity and a kowtowing to popular culture to win elections rather than stand for something.

First off, I argued that, yes, the GOP has become the party of boring, and need candidates who do not eat supper at 4:30 before going off to a blistering game of shuffleboard.

That said, I also think that attempts to upgrade the GOP image will lead to, well, what we have been experiencing for a while now, namely, inauthenticity. The "hip" kids see this for what it is; pandering by a bunch of geriatric hipsters trying to act like their 19.

DBP says;

"The Republican Party is in a similar position to what those would-be pet food barons endured. It's peddling a political product large numbers of voters can't stomach. Young people and minorities particularly find the party's offerings unappetizing."

End quote.

Not sure I agree here, unless by saying "voters can't stomach" they mean we are peddling the diet coke of socialism (only one calorie). In that I agree; we should be peddling strong ale instead. Trying to compete to get these "hip" voters is like trying to get Gordon Ramsay to hold a hot-dog eating contest; it's a pointless exercise.

DBP continues;

"The party's standard-bearers also need a bit of livening up. McCain and Romney are great American success stories, but both were as exciting and inspiring as store-brand mayonnaise. They simply reeked too much of white-bread, humble, rural America. Which is a polite way of saying they're boring."

Too boring for certain, but reeking of humble, rural America? No; they reeked of Establishment money bags insider trading types. It was the corporate nature of both men that killed them. McCain is and always has been a political insider and Romney a financial one. You could see both of these guys hobnobbing with Thurston Howell III. Neither man was genuine. Neither man was "just a working stiff" which if they were rural they would be. It was the fact that they were too deeply embedded in the big money power structure that made them unappealing, not their connection to rural America (and neither had such a connection to begin with.)

They were boring because they were too much the Vice President for Development, completely cut off from the realities of the job.

DBP continues:

"You can bet that in 2016, Democrats will bend over backwards to place a minority on the undercard of their national ticket. It will be someone the party's media stenographers will adoringly portray as fresh-faced, exotic, and exciting. Does that remind you of anyone? Make book on either Massachusetts Gov. Patrick Deval or Newark Mayor Cory Booker -- both youthful, attractive, and best of all (from a Democrat perspective) black.

The GOP must do the same, no matter what candidate heads the top of the ticket. The choice has to have a self-deprecating sense of humor and be authentic and not a token. He or she should drop an occasional "g" at the end of words and avoid speaking with the same nasal affectation Richard Pryor used when mocking white people."

End excerpt.

AArrgh! We CANNOT out-Democrat the Democrats. Identity politics is their domain. To chase an "authentic" minority for the bottom of the ticket (and the Dems will likely try to find one for the top of theirs) is to pander, and everyone will know it. Besides, we cannot actually present one; tried that with Herman Cain, and the Left savaged the man. We've also tried women twice (Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman) and they were savaged by the Left. In fact, any time we have a minority with potential to accomplish great things they are savaged. Remember Alberto Gonzalez? Clarence Thomas? How about Condi Rice? Where is Alan West or Mia Love? These wonderful minorities were treated equally badly by the media and none have the potential for gaining any real power. Why? Because they are renegades, men and women who refused to remain on the liberal plantation.

And for that reason they have been vilified. Thomas is the only one who has really flourished, and he only because he has lifetime tenure.

Does anyone really believe THESE conservative minorities will get a pass?

DBP seems to believe so. He further states;

"The candidate also needs proven street cred, such as at some point publicly stating that not every minority youth wearing a hoodie is a hood or wants to be one. He or she should know that a hoodie is urban camouflage for many kids growing up in tough environments. Kids wearing neatly pressed, well-fitting trousers, polo shirt, and penny loafers are begging for a thumping -- even in upscale suburbs."

End excerpt.

First, hoodie wearing teens generally don't vote. Second, if they did vote I doubt we would get enough to matter. Third, the whole point of being a conservative is to defend tradition and work toward a safer, more moral culture. If a kid has to wear a hoodie as "camouflage what does that tell us? It tells us that the inmates are running the prison. Do we next say that everyone wearing an orange prison jumper is not a criminal? Do we say everyone who has snuck across our border is not illegal? (Oh, wait...) The point is we are supposed to LEAD, not follow. DBP has us leading here by following a degenerating culture.

His advice to up our game in regards to music and elephants is admirable, but he also seems to forget that country music is huge and representative of a very large part of the voting base of the GOP.

This is where he - and the rest of the GOP insider types - makes his greatest mistake. The voting patterns of African Americans is fairly consistent, and it favors Democrats almost entirely. The GOP considers winning 10% of the black vote an achievement. For Republicans to do better they will need a major cultural shift, or would have to out-Democrat the Democrats, meaning they would have to offer more freebies - something that would sever the Party from the base. Placing a black person at the Uncle Tom position on the ticket is a loser of an idea; the Dems will have some new minority on the top, or will so vilify the Republican that the black community will turn out in a larger percentage to vote against him.

Oh, the Washington Post is advising the GOP to make outreach to black voters a priority. One should take such advice with a grain of salt at minimum.

According to the Census Bureau there were roughly 17.813 million African Americans who voted in 2012 - up about 1.7 million from the election of 2008. But there were 98.041 million whites who voted, and that was a drop from over a hundred million who voted in 2008. Where was the problem for the GoP?

And the Hispanic vote is much the same. They make up 11.18 million votes in 2012, up from 9.745 millions in 2008.

These votes cannot be simply written off, but pandering is not the answer, either. Clearly, the GOP lost this last election because of increased voter turnout AND decreased turnout by the base.

Black and Hispanic voters still only make up 23.30% of the electorate; whites make up 71.1%. The assumption made by DBP and the GOP elites is that the white vote is a lock. It isn't, and in fact it may fail to show up. Adding a minority to the ticket is no guarantee of success.

Bear in mind, a minority Republican candidate will turn the opposition out as well as supporters, and that will affect all the races down the ticket. Even if black voters pull the lever for a Republican, that does not translate into a vote for a GOP Senator or Congressman. On the contrary, you could wind up with a toothless Republican with a solidly Democratic Congress.

That's not to say it isn't worth pursuing a minority vote, but that vote must be pursued by our party on principle. It cannot be begged or borrowed. We have to offer a bold vision, one uniquely our own. People want to be a part of something bigger than themselves, and that is what we need to supply. For too long we have been the Me Too party.

In the Book of Matthew Jesus was quoted as admonishing his Disciples:

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as ye go forth out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet."

This is equally sage advice for politics; pandering and cajoling lead to compromising principles, and that leads to what the GOP has become; spineless milksops who are unable to govern out of fear and unwilling to fight on principle. Better to say "this is who we are" and fear not if the public leaves us than to ask "who do you want us to be?" and act based on that.

This nation is dying from lack of leadership. The Democrats have perfected pandering to a high art form, and the Republicans cower in their shadow. We are in a mortal crisis, and the survival of the Republic is at stake. We need to lead. That means telling the public how things should be, not how we may want them to be. We do not offer the broad and easy path, and that will be unpopular with some. But we offer the true path, and we cannot compromise on Truth.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1640 words, total size 10 kb.

Obi Care Gives Big Bucks to Planned Parenthood

A.J. cameron

The 'depopers' need to be stopped!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:09 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

GOP Congressman Invites Obama Rodeo Clown to Texas

Jack Kemp forwards this:

GOP Congressman Invites Obama Rodeo Clown to Texas
By Katrina Trinko
August 14, 2013 4:32 PM

Representative Steve Stockman (R., Texas) has issued an invitation to the unnamed rodeo clown who wore a President Obama mask while performing at a fair in Missouri.

"Liberals want to bronco bust dissent. But Texans value speech, even if its speech they don’t agree with,” Stockman said in a statement.

He blasted the critics of the rodeo clown for "ordering citizens into reeducation classes for mocking a liberal leader,” and added that "Liberals have targeted this man for personal destruction to create a climate of fear.”

"The liberal reaction is straight out of Alinsky,” Stockman continued. "They want to crush dissent by isolating and polarizing anyone who questions Obama, even if it’s a rodeo clown with a harmless gag,”

"No one,” he concluded, "tried to personally destroy the rodeo clown who wore a George H.W. Bush mask.”

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Darwall's Age of Global Warming

William Kay

New from

Cambridge-trained economist and historian Rupert Darwall has done research and writing for the Conservative Research Department and for businesses and think-tanks in Britain and the USA. The 442-page The Age of Global Warming: A History (2013) draws on Darwall’s interviews with dozens of the saga’s heroes and villains including Global Warming masterminds like Sir Crispin Tickell, Sir John Houghton et al.

One might presume commercial publishing houses scrambled after this manuscript. Not so. This being a climate-sceptical manuscript, it was rejected by the majors and finally accepted by Quartet Books – a firm not hitherto associated with pro-business American think-tanks or the British Conservative Party.
Part One of this condensation distills Darwall’s history of Global Warming’s political history. Others have essayed this chronology, and all have over-emphases and omissions. Nevertheless, it does the sceptic’s brain good to periodically jog down a timeline of the great Climate Change caper.
Part Two extracts Darwall’s commentary on: a) the failure of Global Warming as a scientific hypothesis; b) the crimes perpetrated to rescue this hypothesis; and c) the carnage wrought by Global Warming upon Western science.
yours truly,

William Walter Kay

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch Trashes All Missourians

Brian Birdnow sent this angry letter (is there any other kind for these leftist twits) to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for a terribly insulting editorial on Tuesday.

Dear Editor Messenger,

In your commentary on the editorial page on Tuesday, August 13th, you
follow the lead of Attorney General Holder and claim that Missouri
needs a conversation on race, in the wake of the Missouri State
Fair-Rodeo kerfuffle. When the Post-Dispatch mentions a coonversation
on race the readers can expect not a conversation, but a
tongue-lashing and a rant from Tony Messenger concerning the closet
racism of all white Missourians.

How are white Missourians racist? Let us count the ways: White
Missourians are racist when they cheer a rodeo clown who committed the
unpardonable sin of playing President Obama for comic relief. White
Missourians are racists when they supposedly try to keep poor people
from getting health insurance. White Missourians are racists because
the state congressional delegation voted to reduce spending on food
stamps. White Missourians are racists because the Missouri National
Guard supposedly protects racist officers. White Missourians are
racists because police supposedly "profile" moe every year. The
Post-Dispatch has never seen a problem that they do not view through
the prism of race, they have never ceased to foment racial hatred and
discord, they have never hesitated to ascribe low motives toward their

While we are on the subject, the commentary actually tips your
newspaper's hand and shows the very low estimate Tony Messenger has
for his readership, and for the citizens of the state in general. The
commentary is slanderous, defamatory and libelous. This is the
opinion of the Post-Dispatch Editorial Page editor of the people of
Missouri? It stands to reason that an enterprise that regularly
insults its customers/clients will soon be out of business. When one
considers the PD's collapsing subscription numbers this maxim is
clearly illustrated.

Brian E. Birdnow
Bellefontaine, Neighbors

Brian E. Birdnow

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 3 kb.

Craig Rucker commentary -- Not so bright lights

Paul Driessen

In his latest column, my friend and CFACT colleague Craig Rucker takes a very hard look at so-called "renewable energy.” Not surprisingly, he concludes that this heavily subsidized energy "alternative” is not renewable – and not clean, reliable, affordable or sustainable, either. That may not be news to many of your readers.

But the points Craig makes, and the examples he cites, strongly buttress the growing view among voters, energy users, and even many scientists and politicians, that it is time to pull the plug on these programs … which represent political cronyism, wasteful spending, economic damage and environmental harm at their worst.

Craig Rucker

So-called "renewable energy” is not clean, renewable, reliable, affordable or sustainable.

"Renewable energy” is a sexy term used to drive public policies and spending The Obama Administration and like-minded Green zealots have said repeatedly that they are waging a "war on coal,” intend to bankrupt coal-based power plants, and delay or block oil, natural gas and nuclear projects – while fast-tracking and subsidizing ethanol, wind and solar programs

Another apostle of the renewable energy, anti-hydrocarbon movement is Senator Harry Reid. The chief organizer of and keynote speaker at this week’s falsely named National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas, Reid is a true believer in destroying conventional energy through subsidies, regulations and strong-arm tactics. He even wants to shut down every coal power plant in Nevada.

Senator Reid may believe that compelling and subsidizing increased renewable energy use, while undermining and even outlawing conventional energy, is the way to economic growth and energy independence. In reality, this reckless scheme could easily cause the collapse of our energy grid, job creation, economy and living standards, just as it is already doing in Europe.

Unfortunately, Reid and his allies could get away with it, because "renewable” confers an almost Holy Grail status that ensures widespread political, media, public and corporate support (for a lot of wrong reasons). That lofty status, however, ignores two fundamental facts:

1) Wind, solar and biofuel energy are not renewable, eco-friendly, reliable, affordable or sustainable.

2) Renewable energy schemes can no longer be justified by claims that we are rapidly running out of fossil fuels or causing dangerous manmade global warming. Oil sands and hydraulic fracturing have obliterated the depletion myth, while climate change fears are belied by a 16-year hiatus from planetary warming, historic lows in hurricane and tornado activity, and the abject failure of CO2-focused climate computer models.

In other words, the craze for "renewables” is driven by religious zeal, not science or economics.

Capturing, converting and transmitting energy from any source requires an infrastructure – which involves construction, maintenance and eventual replacement, all of which require land disturbance, raw materials extraction and processing, energy and investment. There is no pure fountain from which to drink – only limited options, each with its own upsides and downsides.

To compare energy sources honestly and rationally for specific purposes (heating, lighting, transportation or manufacturing, for instance), we need to apply the same standards and analytical methods for each alternative. However, those who champion "renewables” have consistently misrepresented the human, environmental, capital, manufacturing and maintenance costs of providing reliable, affordable energy in sufficient quantities to power a modern economy and maintain desired living standards.

For example, the subsidies needed for wind and solar projects are many times higher per unit of energy actually produced than is the case for oil, natural gas, coal or nuclear power. And yet, even with those subsidies, electricity delivered by "renewable” sources is far more expensive than is power from conventional alternatives. That means families and businesses pay much higher bills for lighting, heating, air conditioning and machinery power, when renewable mandates are imposed – and higher costs for all consumer goods, since higher energy and manufacturing costs are passed along to consumers.

When we factor in the natural gas, coal or nuclear power plants needed as backup for intermittent, unreliable wind and solar facilities, supposedly environment friendly renewable options also require more land, raw materials, energy and money than alternative, conventional energy sources. Solar arrays also impact vast areas of wildlife habitat, while wind turbines slaughter millions of birds and bats annually – necessitating broad, long-term exemptions from endangered species and other environmental laws.

The high cost of taxpayer subsidies and consumer electricity rates also results in two to four jobs being lost in traditional industries for every wind and solar job created via government manipulation of the marketplace. Blue-collar, poor and middle class families feel the worst impacts from this enormous wealth transfer to lobbyists, pressure groups, bureaucrats, and "green energy” companies and investors.

These subsidies are not sustainable; nor are the birds and bats and wildlife habitat being sacrificed on the altar of politically correct energy. Even worse, President Obama’s determination to slash hydrocarbon use by 80% – to stave off manmade global warming catastrophes that exist only in computer models, White House statements and Hollywood movies – will require a 25-fold increase in wind and solar electricity generation, resulting in the annihilation of numerous species in regions all across the Lower 48 States.

Renewable energy hucksters ignore all of this, as they seek more grants, tax credits, production mandates, feed-in tariffs, production tax credits, and guaranteed annual returns on investments. They seek to claim the high moral ground, by chanting "renewable” while ignoring the environmental, economic and human costs of capturing and delivering energy from their preferred sources.

A recent BBC News article notes that, while wind turbines are typically permitted for up to 25 years, developers anticipate upgrading or replacing them after as few as 10 years in many locations. Offshore life spans are even shorter. A new Scottish Natural Heritage report says, by 2034, the industry will need to recycle or dispose of some 225,000 metric tons of turbine rotor blade material per year. This means 225,000 metric tons of new rotor blades will have to be manufactured, using materials extracted from the Earth via mining, drilling and other processes that use energy and generate mountains of waste.

A 2009 article in MacLife magazine acknowledges that, while "solar-powered gadgets have become de rigueur in our attempts to shrink our carbon footprint,” there is a rarely discussed "dark side” to solar energy. Many solar panels are made with cadmium, a highly toxic carcinogen, and when these panels are decommissioned after about 20 years there will be a huge accumulation of "e-waste.” Manufacturing polysilicon (a key component in sun-capturing wafers) generates four tons of toxic silicon tetrachloride for every ton of product – and Chinese firms that produce the bulk of this material and rare earth metals for solar panels and wind turbines have been dumping their wastes on farmlands and wildlife habitats.

Electric cars are likewise "environment friendly” only in the minds of renewable zealots. They require multiple large batteries that typically last up to three years and cost about $8,000 apiece, not including disposal costs, Diane Bacher points out in eHow. Battery disposal involves putting their hazardous metal wastes in special landfills, and the mass production of electric car batteries will create large volumes of hazardous wastes, while placing as much demand on the power grid as traditional vehicle equipment manufacturing, Bacher notes. Increased use of electric vehicles would put enormous strain on power grids that rely increasingly on intermittent wind and solar energy and less on coal, natural gas and nuclear.

Meanwhile, Europe’s obsession with climate change and fossil fuel eradication has caused it to spend $882 billion on wind and solar power since 2005. Over 800,000 Germans have had their electricity cut off, because they could not afford to pay their soaring electricity bills; millions of British families have been driven into fuel poverty; and millions remain jobless in a stagnant EU economy.

"Renewable energy” is a deliberate false labeling strategy, designed to curry favor with trendy urbanites who are ignorant about energy and economic reality. The real cost to U.S. economic growth, jobs and living standards from following the Green Brick Road to ecological paradise is equally beyond their ken.

This is energy policy by and for not-so-bright lights, who let their religious fervor for anything not hydrocarbon get in the way of common sense and fact-based analysis. Their policies will result in dim bulbs in our future light fixtures – and expensive, job-killing energy for other needs. We cannot afford to continue going down this suicidal path.


Craig Rucker is executive director of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:06 AM | Comments (72) | Add Comment
Post contains 1422 words, total size 10 kb.

August 14, 2013

Obama Admin Declaring Vets Mentally Incompetent to Seize their Guns

Timothy Birdnow

The BHO Administration is using psychiatric declarations to seize the guns of veterans.

According to Michael Connelly:

"I have written extensively about the horrendous and ongoing efforts by the Veterans Administration to disarm American military veterans by declaring them incompetent to handle their financial affairs due to physical or mental disabilities. Once declared incompetent the veterans are arbitrarily stripped of their Second Amendment right to purchase, own, or possess a firearm.

This is all being done by broadening the definition of mental illness to the point of absurdity. Often with the VA there is no psychiatrist or psychologist involved in the determination of incompetence. Instead, some untrained bureaucrat reviews the file of the veteran and if they find any mention of PTSD or the use of the word depression they seize on that and make the declaration of incompetence. There is no legal adjudication process involved in this; the veterans have no right to due process as required by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. It is tyranny in its purest form."

End excerpt.

This is exactly what the Soviet Union used to do to citizens as did the Nazis. 

Welcome to "hope and change"; it's more like "Dope and Chains".

Hat tip; J.K. Oates at Tea Party Nation.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

Benghazi and the Banality of Evil

By Daren Jonescu

Is it just me, or is the string of distractions that seem to pop up right on cue every time new light is about to be shed on the Benghazi story getting a little old?

Months late, CNN has gotten around to "breaking" a story that might help to complete the disturbing puzzle for the mainstream public, namely the allegation that Benghazi was the hub of a CIA weapons-running operation. Within hours, this was washed from the headlines by the "chatter" indicating an imminent terror plot that required the United States to close numerous diplomatic facilities. (Hurray, NSA!) And then, within days, the mainstream media was "breaking" the news that the first charges had been laid in connection with the Benghazi attack. (How convenient.)

True to pattern, a mainstream media outlet will get its "honest journalism" points, lifting the lid on the facts just long enough to release a little pressure before the pot explodes, but guaranteeing that by Sunday morning Benghazi will once again have been buried by supposedly more urgent issues.

As many of us have been observing since the fall of 2012, the Benghazi outrage -- an attack that, due to the Obama administration's aggressive passivity, became a massacre -- is the "scandal" that will never go away. And yet the story never achieves the fever pitch of many past, far lesser abuses of power, because the administration, in cahoots with its propaganda wing in the American news media, always finds a way to tamp down the big questions at the very moment those questions threaten to break loose in the American consciousness.

After their initial issuance of official lies regarding a nonexistent spontaneous protest over a video no one in Libya cared about, the two leads in this drama treated the world to a remarkable performance of "The Pair That Wasn't There." First, we had Hillary Clinton, the incredible disappearing woman, whose opening trick was to concede her first big scene, the sweep of Sunday political shows in the first days of the story, to her understudy, Susan Rice. Rice's scripted litany of lies was subsequently defended by the president on the grounds that poor Ms. Rice didn't know what she was talking about. (So why was she chosen to deliver the administration's first official sit-down interview accounts of the attack?) Clinton followed this auspicious opening by turning down a cordial invite to Congress in favor of an urgent State Department trip to...Australia. And then, to top it all off, she went to bed and bumped her head and couldn't get up for several weeks, or at least not up to Capitol Hill.

When at last she testified before Congress, four months after the attack, and two months after she was asked to testify, her only memorable line was "What difference -- at this point -- does it make?," thus punctuating her disappearing act with a classic "They'll never catch me!" flourish for the audience. As I have previously contended, the key words in Clinton's famous argument for ignorance were "at this point." That was her big "oops" moment, when her words and exasperated intonation revealed far more than was prudent. What she revealed was that her own, and the entire administration's, manner of addressing

Benghazi was built on a strategy of delay: say anything, leave the country, maneuver around all direct questions, claim to be conducting one's own internal investigation, all in the hope that the fog of time will obscure the most horrendous details of this affair, or at least prevent those details from gathering into a complete and coherent picture in the public's mind. Her indignant qualification -- "at this point" -- suggested a woman flustered at being pressed on matters she could not answer directly without destroying her own career, and perhaps bringing down an entire corrupt administration, but who genuinely believed that she had stalled long enough to dull such pointed interrogation.

And then there is her partner in "scandal," President Obama, who makes plain old Clintonesque hiding and lying look like a cheap stunt. He has taken obfuscation and dissembling to a whole new, delightfully unforeseen level: he can hide the truth even from himself. For weeks, in a variety of formats, from nationally televised presidential debates to TV interviews, he recited an absurdist script that evoked a man whose essence had become so detached from his existence that we were left to wonder whether he even knew he was the one telling the lies. Obama has become a perfect microcosm of the Western democratic political establishment in its hundred-year leftward trajectory: a one-man kabuki performance which presents its falseness so consistently and committedly that it begins to displace reality in the minds of the enthralled/enslaved public.

On Benghazi, Obama's carefully memorized recitation, from which he never strayed, and which he never dared to embellish, was this:

As soon as we found out the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions: Number one, beef up our security and procedures, not just in Libya, but in every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us. ... And number three, we are going to find out who did this and we are going to hunt them down.
We now know that Obama was informed of the attack almost immediately, and that he discussed it at a previously scheduled meeting with Leon Panetta during the early moments, after which he never made a single follow-up phone call to inquire about the status of the violence. And yet his public self-defense was that while American government representatives were under deadly attack, he gave three completely generic instructions, all of them focused on long-term bureaucratic action, and none of them intended to address the murderous assault currently underway. It must never be forgotten that this list of absurdly inappropriate responses was meticulously scripted after the fact by handlers who presumably calculated that it was the best light in which Obama's inaction could be framed.

And now another dark facet of Benghazi, long discussed in the non-American media, as well as in the American alternative media, has made its way into the U.S. mainstream. In citing reports that the CIA has been using intimidation tactics to scare agents out of telling all they know, CNN notes that the many CIA agents in Benghazi on September 11 may have been part of a weapons-running operation intended to deliver arms to Muslim rebels in Syria. (The news here, of course, is not the weapons-running operation, which has been discussed in detail for ten months, but the fact that a U.S. government propaganda tool mentioned it.) The full import of this possibility must not be overlooked, or allowed to remain in a separate compartment of our minds, detached from the Obama-Clinton cover-up efforts. Putting the two parts of this story together may clarify even further the level of immorality that has been, and continues to be, perpetrated by the central players in this atrocious drama.

We know there were requests for extra security in Libya in the months prior to the attack, and that these requests were turned down. We know Clinton and Obama spoke once while the Benghazi massacre was ongoing, but not until several hours after it began. We know that long before speaking with Obama, Clinton contacted then-CIA director David Petraeus, "to confer and coordinate," as she told the Senate hearing, "given the presence of his facility, which of course was not well-known but was something that we knew and wanted to make sure we were closely latched up together." "Coordinate" and "latch up" in what sense? Getting their stories straight before being questioned? (Remember, this coordinating and latching up was taking place while their employees were under deadly assault.) We also know that none of these top-level decision-makers took any steps to activate U.S. resources in an attempt to rescue the besieged Americans during the seven-and-a-half-hour attack. Quite the contrary.

It is here that we must drag the facts out of their separate compartments, and bring them together into a coherent picture of the decision-making process that led to the deaths of several Americans, the injury of others, and an elaborate cover-up operation.
On July 30, 1945, the USS Indianapolis delivered uranium to be used in the Hiroshima atomic bomb, and was then torpedoed by a Japanese submarine, sinking in minutes. Most of the 1,196 crewmen survived the sinking of the ship, but several hundred died in the ocean over the next few days, many by shark attack. (This disaster was famously memorialized through actor Robert Shaw's fictional reminiscence in Steven Spielberg's Jaws.) Upon being hit, the Indianapolis sent distress signals, which were ignored. For a long time, however, the U.S. government claimed that the men were not rescued because no distress signal was ever sent, on account of the secrecy of the mission. The purpose of this false official story was perhaps to hide the gross failure in the chain of command which led to the single greatest loss of life in U.S. Navy history.

Benghazi represents the evil sister of the Indianapolis story. In this case, we know for a fact that numerous "distress signals" were sent. We also know that those urgent messages were not trapped in the lower reaches of the chain of command due to drunken intermediaries or skeptical officers. The truth of this disaster made it to the top of the hierarchy very quickly, while there was still time to act. And yet Obama, and the administration official most closely associated with the situation, Clinton, did not act. They walked away. They stopped talking. They lied, hid, and spit bullets at anyone who dared to doubt their veracity. (Remember Obama's threatening glare at Romney during the second presidential debate as he warned his rival not to question his concern for his underlings? It worked: Romney effectively ceased to question Obama on Benghazi from that moment on.)

What can be said with certainty is that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton demonstrated the moral frigidity of tyrants during and after the Benghazi attack. This is true regardless of how the attack occurred, particularly in light of the fact that there was never any evidence whatsoever for the one and only story to which the administration tried to cling until contradictory evidence forced them to abandon their hopes of having any official story at all.

The remaining question for an honest and rational observer is whether the whole truth could be even uglier than the partial picture we have been sickened by since last fall. If the gun-running scenario is verified, the answer to that question will be yes. For then we will have a president and secretary of state of the most powerful nation on Earth finding out that their covert effort to smuggle arms to Muslim rebels has been hijacked by Muslim terrorists, and deciding that protecting themselves from exposure to a major scandal is a more urgent priority than defending the lives of their countrymen. Those who still have a conscience have been asking how Obama and Clinton could have responded so soullessly, so inhumanely. This alleged CIA operation may provide the missing piece that solves the puzzle, and in so doing demonstrate the logic of the self-obsessed progressive power monger to a degree that is as clear as it is revolting.

The timing of the attack, and the fact that the attackers had to have known that the ambassador would be in Benghazi that day, would -- especially if one knew that Benghazi was the center of a U.S.-led weapons-running operation -- make a carefully planned assault, rather than random mob violence, the obvious default assumption, even "before all the facts were in." Their twisted stratagems in the Middle East apparently having been torpedoed by terrorists, Obama and Clinton froze in their tracks -- because they were suddenly faced with the inescapable reality that those tracks could no longer be covered -- and determined that in the name of preserving their own power, the drowning men ought to be left to the sharks. They chose to allow the lives of their representatives to go to waste, if necessary, rather than draw the spotlight onto themselves by "getting involved." Time was spent cobbling together a semi-plausible cover story in those hours before Clinton and Obama made their first public statements -- time that might have been spent planning and ordering a rescue effort.

The decision was not logical; it was the confused calculation of people whose only urgent concern was to avoid getting caught in bright lights that would expose their dirty hands. They buried their heads under the pillows and tried to wish their exposure away. They behaved like poorly raised children, prepared to sacrifice anyone or anything to save themselves from punishment. (Such behavior falls within a consistent pattern for both Clinton and Obama.) They behaved, in other words, like leading progressives. And in the aftermath of a disaster they helped to enable, and did not try to mitigate, they have done everything in their power to avoid having the unvarnished facts revealed in a timely fashion, thus spitting on the graves of the men whose deaths might have been avoided in the first place, if only the most powerful man and woman in the world had been in possession of even a fragment of the moral substance with which we have to assume they were born.
(Simple thought experiment: Imagine yourself in their respective positions, in the late afternoon of September 11, 2012, hearing early reports of an ongoing attack on your diplomats and agents in Libya. How would you feel? How often would you demand updates? Would you order your civilian and military experts to come up with response options immediately? Or would you go home and effectively take the phone off the hook, or call your fellow bigwigs to "coordinate" and "latch up" the public statements you'll have to give in the morning?)

The decision-making process I have described above is admittedly a speculation based on available evidence. In defense of this speculation, however, it seems to me to be the most generous light in which we can frame the actions of Obama and Clinton regarding Benghazi. The truth regarding their motives and responses cannot be any better than this; it may, however, turn out to be worse.

The question is, will mainstream America ever start to care enough to do something about it? In this regard, Benghazi is a symbol of the current predicament of Western civilization. The fact that Obama was re-elected president of the United States while this story was still fresh, and that Clinton is casually presumed to be the presidential frontrunner for 2016, elevates Hannah Arendt's famous concept, the banality of evil, almost to the point of being definitive of this final stage of modernity's decay. Millions of ordinary people close their eyes and walk "forward" on demand -- without evil intent, perhaps, but without the reason and judgment that men must possess if they are to discern and avoid evil outcomes.
In such an era, evil outcomes are guaranteed.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:29 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 2557 words, total size 16 kb.

For all Missouri Obama clown fans

Jack Kemp

This is for all fans of the Missouri rodeo clown who wore an Obama mask and was chastised for it, ; there is a protest device you can use in the privacy of your privy.

Amazon sells various types of Obama face toilet paper, some with different captions.

Amazon, in an attempt at bi-partisanship, also sells toilet paper rolls with the image of Mitt Romney.

Well, now when you say your least favorite politicians stink, you will have physical evidence - so to speak.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:50 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 68 of 471 >>
169kb generated in CPU 0.08, elapsed 0.1925 seconds.
40 queries taking 0.1265 seconds, 203 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.