Donald Trump Has Crossed An Uncrossable Line On Muslims Or Something

By William Teach December 9, 2015 – 8:04 am

Let me start off by saying that I do not support Trump. I found his comments on Muslims to be idiotic from a political point of view. There’s an old saying going back to Napolean: “Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake.” We should not think of Obama as the enemy, just an opponent, despite Obama thinking that anyone who isn’t 100% with him being an enemy. Obama did extremely poorly during his Sunday speech, and the best thing to do was to let that mistake fester. Trump decided to bloviate, and, regardless of whether he was slightly taken out of context, it was the wrong timing. He essentially is calling for stopping Muslims from entering the USA until “we figure out what is going on.”

Joe “Indians at 7-11s” Biden has called this a “dangerous brew”. The White House says this disqualifies Trump. That statement could elicit it’s own rebuttal post. Republicans are being forced to disown the comments. And over at the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus has her own take

Donald Trump has crossed an uncrossable line of bigotry

It is happening here.

With his call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” Donald Trump has crossed an uncrossable line of bigotry and xenophobia. The Republican front-runner presents a clearer, more present danger to U.S. interests than the supposedly threatening Muslims he seeks to exclude. He is a one-man recruiting tool for the Islamic State.

Huh. Last time I checked, Trump was yelling “Alahu Akbar” before shooting anything up and leaving pipe bombs all over the place. He’s not shooting anything up. I’m not a follower of Trump, and I do not think he’s a Conservative, but, he’s not attempting to push America into any type of authoritarian nation, much like the hardcore Islamists are doing in 1st World nations, including our own. While we have a joke in the South that “he needed killin'” as a valid defense, it’s a joke. Honor killings are a real thing among the Islamists.

This was not Trump off the cuff, a Trump gaffe, Trump taken out of context or Trump responding ambiguously to a leading suggestion.

It was Trump being Trump, which is to say, crude, intolerant and ignorant. Yet nothing Trump has said previously comes close to this un-American suggestion.

And nothing in my experience of U.S. politics has been so sickening, has made me so embarrassed for my country. Who could have imagined that any supposedly mainstream political candidate — no less the front-runner of a major political party — would propose anything so extreme?

Ruth continues with her outrage for quite some time. Maybe we should look beyond her experience

The Democratic Party platform of 1856 denounced opposition to immigration in the name of “the liberal principles… which makes ours the land of liberty and the asylum of the oppressed of every nation…“ which “have ever been cardinal principles in the Democratic faith”. (snip)

The Democratic Party’s history is an endless parade of bigotry and treason. The 1860 Democratic platform continued to campaign for immigrant rights and slavery. The 1864 platform denounced the Civil War and called for negotiations with the Confederacy. The 1868 platform denounced “negro supremacy”. Then the Democrats spent the next fifty years obsessed with Asians.

The 1876 platform warned of an invasion of Asians, “unaccustomed to the traditions of a progressive civilization” and called for “legislation” to “prevent further importation or immigration of the Mongolian race.” The 1880 platform called for “No more Chinese immigration”. The 1884 platform “reaffirmed the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson” and demanded an end to “the admission of servile races.”

The 1892 platform denounced voting rights for black people as a Republican effort at the “reviving of race antagonisms” and demanded “the rigid enforcement of the laws against Chinese immigration”. The 1900 platform called for the “strict enforcement of the Chinese exclusion law, and its application to the same classes of all Asiatic races.” By that they meant the Japanese.

In 1904, the Democrats gave the Chinese a break and attacked the Mormons. The Mormons had been Democrats, but they were turning Republican. But by 1908, the Democrats were back to beating up on the Chinese, warning of “Asiatic immigrants who can not be amalgamated with our population” and whose “presence among us would raise a race issue.”

They were still pimping opposition to Asians in 1924. This was their official party platform. During that same period, and going back into the early 1800’s, their party platform also included heavy support for slavery, at least till it was outlawed with a Constitutional amendment, which Democrats were against. Afterwards, they opposed Blacks in all manners. They were the party of segregation, Jim Crow, housing covenants (meant to block Blacks from moving into White neighborhoods), Bull Connor, George Wallace, lynching, and the KKK.

The Democratic Party’s Senator Casserly delivered a speech titled “The Chinese Evil” which warned that California would be “scourged” by the “Asiatic hordes.” Well, Democrats thought of Blacks in the same manner, all the way up through the Civil Rights era, after which they suddenly decided to whitewash their opposition and institutionalized racism and say they were the party of Blacks. Why? For one of the same reasons they opposed Asians: voters. Asians tended to vote Republican, and Democrats did not like that. Of course, we can’t forget about their hatred of Asians. And Blacks. They really hated Blacks. But, getting Blacks onto the Democratic plantation did wonders for their voting support.

One has to wonder why Democrats are so supportive of radicalized Muslims? Is it just for the votes? Back to Ruth

All Republican lawmakers, party officials and candidates must immediately renounce Trump and assert that they will not support this demagogue at the top of the ticket. Failing to do so implicitly associates them with Trump’s bigotry.

Interestingly, Democrats have never renounced their bigotry against Asians and racism against Blacks. More interestingly, they never demand that all Muslims renounce the fundamentalist, hardcore version of Islam. By Ruth’s standards, if they do not renounce, that implicitly associates them with extremist Islam.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Donald Trump Has Crossed An Uncrossable Line On Muslims Or Something »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, RoP | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise? Iran Violates UN Resolutions With New Missile Launch

By William Teach December 8, 2015 – 3:07 pm

But, hey, we can totally trust Iran to uphold the provisions of the deal Mr. Obama struck with them. Even though it has no force of law

(Fox News) Iran has carried out a new medium range ballistic missile test in breach of two United Nations Security Council resolutions, a senior U.S. official told Fox News on Monday.

Western intelligence says the test was held Nov. 21 near Chabahar, a port city in southeast Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan Province near the border with Pakistan.  The launch took place from a known missile test site along the Gulf of Oman.

The missile, known as a Ghadr-110, has a range of 1,800 – 2000 km, or 1200 miles, and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The missile fired in November is an improved version of the Shahab 3, and is similar to the precision guided missile tested by Iran on Oct. 10, which elicited strong condemnation from members of the U.N. Security Council.

“The United States is deeply concerned about Iran’s recent ballistic missile launch,” Samantha Power, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., said in a statement after the last Iranian ballistic missile test in October.

Thank goodness, the Obama admin is “deeply concerned”. Perhaps it’s time for a new hashtag or a strongly worded letter on a Hallmark card.

Then there’s this

Read: Surprise? Iran Violates UN Resolutions With New Missile Launch »

Posted in Current Affairs, Iran | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 8, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…are glaciers that will disappear because Someone Else refused to give up meat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Doug Ross @ Journal, with a post on Obama’s new terror alert system.

BTW, you can consider all IAYS posts as open threads to discuss whatever you want.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Severed Pig Head Thrown At Philly Mosque

By William Teach December 8, 2015 – 10:19 am

Have you ever wondered why things like this, the whole “hate crime” genre, seems to happen mostly in areas chock full of Democrats and run mostly by Democrats?

(Philly.com) Philadelphia police, the FBI, and the city’s Human Relations Commission launched investigations Monday after a worker at a North Philadelphia mosque found a severed pig’s head outside its door.

Surveillance video outside the Al Aqsa Islamic Society, on Germantown Avenue near Jefferson Street, showed a red pickup truck drove past the building twice just before 11 p.m. Sunday.

The first time it crept along slowly near the curb. On its second pass, the video shows, someone extended an arm from the passenger window and tossed something that rolled to a stop near the mosque’s front door.

An employee found the bloodied animal head there around 6 a.m. Monday. Pigs are considered insulting to Muslims who observe halal dietary laws.

What’s the over/under on this being a fake hate crime, a hoax? It certainly wouldn’t be the first time, and won’t be the last. If it is real, why is a deeply Democratic city so hateful and hurtful?

BTW, it’s rather ironic that the reporter’s name is John Bacon.

Read: Severed Pig Head Thrown At Philly Mosque »

Posted in Current Affairs | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Change Not Polling Well With Farmers, Albertans

By William Teach December 8, 2015 – 8:45 am

The Cult of Climastrology has previously trotted out a talking point that we should listen to the farmers, because they are supposedly on the front lines, having to deal with the changing of planting and picking seasons. Well, what do they have to say?

(Farm Pulse) Want proof that the climate change debate has become politicized in the United States? Look no further than a Nov. 2015 survey by the Pew Research Center.

The group asked Americans if they believe global climate change is a “very serious problem.” While 68% of democrats said it was, only 20% of republicans did. Pew also asked respondents if climate change is harming people now, and 53% of democrats versus 24% of republicans agreed.

A month later, Farm Journal Pulse asked farmers the exact same question: “Do you think climate change is a serious problem?” A total of 1,783 answered, with 78% saying no and 22% saying yes.

Huh. Here’s what it looks like

So much for 25+ years of scaremongering spreading awareness.

(CBC) The NDP’s new climate change plan is not going over well with Albertans, according a survey released Monday by Mainstreet-Postmedia.

The poll suggests 68 per cent of Albertans are opposed to the overall strategy, 22 per cent are in favour and 10 per cent are undecided.

The introduction of a carbon tax was opposed by 66 per cent of respondents.

Now, why would they be against a carbon tax?

The carbon tax on industry is expected to raise $3 billion a year, to be reinvested in renewable energy sectors and cover increased costs to consumers.

But the strategy will be paid for not only by industry, but by ordinary Albertans.

The province estimates the carbon tax will amount to roughly $470 in increased heating, electricity and transportation costs for an average household in 2018.

The Cult’s policies have real world implications for people. Negative ones. And will certainly do more harm to the middle and lower classes. Only in the big city of Edmonton does a carbon tax poll above water, 45% approving, 41% against. Calgary goes 33 for and 70 against. Overall, outside the cities, just 18% support a carbon tax.

I guess they do not want to be like Ontario, which “invested” tens of billions in “green” energy, and now cannot provide basic services, they’ve seen energy costs spike, and are on the verge of bankruptcy.

Read: Climate Change Not Polling Well With Farmers, Albertans »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

“One Person, One Vote” Heads To Supreme Court

By William Teach December 8, 2015 – 8:04 am

This has made the NY Times very upset. Why?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear arguments in a voting rights case that has the potential to shift political power from urban areas to rural ones, a move that would provide a big boost to Republican voters in many parts of the nation.

The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940, will address a question many thought had been settled long ago: What is the meaning of the principle of “one person, one vote”?

The principle, rooted in cases from the 1960s that revolutionized democratic representation in the United States, applies to the entire American political system aside from the Senate, where voters from states with small populations have vastly more voting power than those with large ones. Everywhere else, voting districts must have very close to the same populations.

But the Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on who must be counted: all residents or just eligible voters?

The difference matters, because people who are not eligible to vote — children, immigrants here legally who are not citizens, unauthorized immigrants, people disenfranchised for committing felonies, prisoners — are not spread evenly across the country. With the exception of prisoners, they tend to be concentrated in urban areas.

Their presence amplifies the voting power of people eligible to vote in urban areas, usually helping Democrats. Rural areas that lean Republican, by contrast, usually have higher percentages of residents eligible to vote.

Getting beyond the NY Times’ tortured concern that Democrats will lose some political power, what this comes down to is “who is represented?” SCOTUSblog noted

The Supreme Court famously said, in 1964, that “legislators represent people, not trees or acres.”  That was its basic explanation for getting away from the traditional pattern of mapping election districts by geographic area, rather than by the people who are to be represented.  But the lingering question is: who are “the people” who are represented?

They could be the voters who actually go to the polls to exercise that right.  They could be the people eligible to vote, many of whom stay away from the polls.  They could be only the U.S. citizens.  They could be all the people, even those who do not have the right to vote — because they are children, non-citizens, or prison inmates, for example.

The plaintiffs want district apportionment to be determined by voters, as in, people who are eligible to vote. The suit makes an interesting case: should people who aren’t eligible to vote be counted in the census in terms of developing voting districts? A case could be made that non-eligible to vote US citizens should be counted, but, not non-citizens, regardless of whether they are legally or illegally present.

Of course, this has driven the reliably nutjob Salon to be nutjob, and they take it down the road of raaaaacism. Shocking, eh? They say this is a “dangerous assault on voting rights”.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was enacted so that people of color would no longer be considered only three-fifths of a person; the Evenwel plaintiffs now argue that some people should now be counted as zero-fifths of a person. This offensive scheme would dilute the ability of communities to elect the candidates of their choice and would stifle resources allocated to the districts where these populations have been undercounted. This simply cannot be rationalized in a democracy.

In a sane world (which is not Salon, obviously), the discussion would be centered on whether US citizens who are not eligible to vote would be included in the population count when creating voting districts. The insane leftists have made it so that we have to discuss whether people who are legally or illegally present in the United States should be counted, because they supposedly deserve representation. The length of legal VISAs varies. But, the vast majority do not even approach 10 years. The US holds a census every 10 years. Why should they be counted?

Illegals? Why should they be counted at all?

Evenwel v. Abbott marks a critical turning point. Our nation can take a regressive pivot backwards or affirm our core values of equality and justice. While the Supreme Court could let the Evenwel plaintiffs force chaotic and discriminatory redistricting schemes upon us all, the better choice is to uphold our most fundamental right to equal representation.

The central question goes back to “why would non-US citizens be counted for representation in the first place? They aren’t US citizens.”

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: “One Person, One Vote” Heads To Supreme Court »

Posted in Constitution | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 7, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…are melting glaciers that never ever melted before fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on victim blaming.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Bernie Sanders Decides To Go Brownshirt With His Climate Plan

By William Teach December 7, 2015 – 10:52 am

This AP article at US News and World Report is about Bernie Sanders scheduled to release his big Hotcoldwetdry plan today. You know, a few days after yet another murderous rampage by Islamists here in the United States

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is rolling out a plan to slow the effect of climate change, vowing to cut U.S. carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030.

The Democratic presidential candidate said in a proposal released on Monday he would seek to impose a tax on carbon dioxide pollution, long a nonstarter with majority Republicans in Congress, and aim to slash carbon pollution in the U.S. by 80 percent by 2050 compared to levels in 1990. The proposal, he said, would put “people before the profits of polluters.”

Sanders has made efforts to reduce global warming a cornerstone of his presidential campaign and his 16-page proposal, released as negotiators meet at the U.N. climate conference in Paris, provides the first extensive details on how he would seek to address it.

I suppose it would be too much for the AP to link to the the plan. Before I get to Bernie’s hyper-leftist wish list (it’s not so much a plan as bullet points), here’s the fun part of the article

Democrats view climate change as part of a winning formula against Republicans in the 2016 elections, and Sanders’ primary opponents, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, have offered wide-ranging environmental plans. Many Republican candidates have been dismissive of global warming despite public support for efforts to combat it.

They’re more than welcome to make it a cornerstone. It’s been a minor, minor issue that hasn’t swayed voters in the past, and, when stacked up against real issues that impact everyday citizens, it is last or next to last.

A few things looking at Bernie’s so-called plan. It spends quite a bit whining about things that haven’t happened, but could possibly maybe might happen! As mentioned, he wants to cut “carbon pollution”, of which there is no such thing. Then

Create a Clean-Energy Workforce of 10 million good-paying jobs by creating a 100% clean energy system. Transitioning toward a completely nuclear-free clean energy system for electricity, heating, and transportation is not only possible and affordable it will create millions of good jobs, clean up our air and water, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

So far, these green jobs have barely materialized, even with the full backing of taxpayer funds. Notice he wants to also eliminate nuclear energy.

Return billions of dollars to consumers impacted by the transformation of our energy system and protect the most vulnerable communities in the country suffering the ravages of climate change. Bernie will tax polluters causing the climate crisis, and return billions of dollars to working families to ensure the fossil fuel companies don’t subject us to unfair rate hikes. Bernie knows that climate change will not affect everyone equally – disenfranchised minority communities and the working poor will be hardest hit. The carbon tax will also protect those most impacted by the transformation of our energy system and protect the most vulnerable communities in the country suffering the ravages of climate change.

He’s acknowledging that his plan will cause extreme financial pain to middle and lower class citizens.

Obviously, despite his own massive use of fossil fuels, he has his hate on for the fossil fuels industry. He’ll ban Arctic drilling, offshore drilling, pipeline projects, fracking, and exporting liquefied natural gas and oil.

There’s way to much to fisk, but, here’s where it gets really disturbing

Create a national environmental and climate justice plan that recognizes the heightened public health risks faced by low-income and minority communities. Low-income and minority neighborhoods will continue to be the hardest hit if we don’t act to stop climate change now.

Does that sound like he is going to Brownshirt away in the name of ‘climate change’?

Bring climate deniers to justice so we can aggressively tackle climate change. It is an embarrassment that Republican politicians, with few exceptions, refuse to even recognize the reality of climate change, let alone are prepared to do anything about it. The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is to blame for much of the climate change skepticism in America. Bernie recently called for the Department of Justice to investigate Exxon Mobil, which may have not only known about the dangers of climate change, but has spent millions of dollars to spread doubt about the causes and impacts of burning fossil fuels.

Yes, it does sound like he’s going to Brownshirt away in violation of our 1st Amendment. Prick a Warmist and you find a Fascist. To use a word Warmists love to throw around, I find it “chilling” that a candidate for President of the USA to put into writing a plan to go after people who hold viewpoints he disagrees with.

Read: Bernie Sanders Decides To Go Brownshirt With His Climate Plan »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Paris Climate Talks: Not Really About Climate, Just All About Money And Trust

By William Teach December 7, 2015 – 7:20 am

But, mostly the money

(NY Times) The international climate change negotiations entering their second and final week encompass a vast and complicated array of political, economic and legal questions. But at bottom, the talks boil down to two issues: trust and money.

In this global forum, no one questions the established science that greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels are warming the planet — or that both developed and developing economies must all eventually lower their greenhouse emissions to stave off a future that could wreak havoc on the world’s safety and economic stability.

If “no one questions”, why did the vast majority take long, fossil fueled trips to Paris?

In a major breakthrough, 184 governments have already submitted plans detailing how they will cut their domestic emissions after 2020.

Those pledges are expected to make up the core of a new accord, which could be signed next weekend. The agreement is also expected to require countries to return to the table at least once every 10 years with even more stringent emissions reduction pledges.

But can those governments be trusted to do what they say they will do?

That is the crucial question that will determine whether a Paris climate change accord has teeth, or whether it is little more than an expression of good will.

Consider that almost no country kept to their Kyoto Protocol agreements. Still, it’s not really about trust (nor climate change), it’s about the money

But rich countries such as the United States have insisted that most of that money come from private investments, rather than taxpayer dollars.

President Obama’s initial pledge of $3 billion in climate finance over three years is already meeting with fierce objections from Congress.

But India has demanded that a final text include legally binding language that would commit the developed world to allocating the money from public funds.

“We will push for an increase in public spending,” said Ajay Mathur, an Indian climate change negotiator. “We want developed countries to provide resources that can help mobilize capital. The amounts that have been pledged are not enough.”

The non-developed and 2nd world nations want lots and lots of cash from the developed world, and a legally binding promise that they’ll get it. They do not want to hear that some private entities might possibly pony up that money: they want it forcibly confiscated from taxpayers. A redistribution scheme to enrich their treasuries, rather than having private entities build low carbon infrastructure and similar measures.

Read: Paris Climate Talks: Not Really About Climate, Just All About Money And Trust »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Primetime Oval Office Speech As Boring As Expected

By William Teach December 7, 2015 – 7:06 am

He spent 13 long, long minutes yammering, in an attempt to calm the nation. The broadcast was surreal, in that, instead of sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office, he had a podium. He used his soft voice, which he apparently thinks is calming and reassuring, when, in fact, it puts people to sleep and makes it appear as if he doesn’t care.

(LA Times) President Obama addressed the nation from the Oval Office on Sunday night hoping to reassure anxious Americans that his administration has a strategy to defeat Islamic State overseas, and to protect Americans from the threat of homegrown terrorism.

But the 13-minute speech underscored the magnitude of the challenge and the dearth of options for the White House.

Obama revealed no new ideas or plans for dismantling Islamic State, and he again ruled out sending a large force of U.S. ground troops to fight in the Middle East.

Yesterday, I mentioned things we should expect. How’d I do? Using the transcript from Vox

  • It’s scheduled for 8pm, so, it will start at around 8:10 (not his usual late, because he wants to be done by kickoff) (only a few minutes late)
  • He’ll blame the rise of ISIS on Bush’s “war of choice” in Iraq (surprisingly, he didn’t. He did yammer on about me, myself, and I, though)
  • He’ll minimize the danger to the United States and its citizens from ISIS and other radical Islamic groups (he basically said they were contained)
  • He won’t even use the phrase “radical Islam” or anything near that (he made mention that a tiny section of Muslims are radicalized, but quickly told us that all these Islamic terrorists are not really Muslims)
  • He’ll trot out the strawman that blaming all Muslims is, to put it simply, Islamophobia and un-American (yes, he did. Spent roughly 3:31 doing this)
  • He’ll make some equivalency arguments about Christians and the Crusades and Inquisition (nope)
  • He’ll say that his strategy in fighting ISIS is working (despite all appearances) (he did this 100%)
  • He’ll quickly veer into other subjects, starting with allowing all the Syrian refugees in, and will say they go through the “most rigorous background checks, without mentioning that they rely on the refugees deciding to tell the truth (nope)
  • He’ll spend a lot of time on instituting gun control, failing to mention that California has the exact type of gun laws that he and other liberals say will stop these types of shootings (did spend a short time on gun control)
  • He’ll whine about Republicans blocking the use of the no-fly list for gun ownership, an arbitrary list with little to no due process, which would have made it impossible for Senator Ted Kennedy to obtain a firearm. For a so-called “Constitutional scholar”, he sure seems to fail at knowing and enforcing the Bill of Rights (Oh, yes, he did)
  • He’ll have his sad face on, and end up telling us with a wag of a finger that we had best not be mean and say negative things about Muslims (lots of time on this)
  • The only time Obama will get passionate will be during the gun control portion. He’ll be dull as dishtowel while discussing the actual shooting, because he really just doesn’t care (He was actually dull as a dishtowel for the entire thing. He didn’t show any passion whatsoever)

It was a speech from a man who has basically given his 2 week notice and is just going through the motions.

There are several steps that Congress should take right away. To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

Again, even the ACLU is against this list, and sued to make it easier for people to be able to get off this list. It would not have stopped the San Bernardino killers, nor any of the other mass shooters. Foreigners on the list can’t purchase guns legally, since they are not US citizens.

Vox says this speech was not aimed at pundits and insiders, but the average person who doesn’t pay attention that much.

These points may have been old hat to political insiders, but the White House clearly felt this message wasn’t getting through in the news coverage of recent days — and wanted to try and shore up Obama’s sagging terrorist-fighting credentials in the face of intense criticism from Republicans.

So, this speech was All About Obama. Offered nothing new, was long on finger wagging.

BTW, NJ.com has perhaps the silliest story

That’s from their web front page (story here). But, I guess the NJ Devils did rather terrorize the Florida Panthers, at least on the score sheet.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Primetime Oval Office Speech As Boring As Expected »

Posted in Barry Obama, RoP | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove