Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup – Independence Day Edition

By William Teach July 4, 2021 – 9:16 am

Happy Sunday! Another gorgeous day in the Once And Future Nation of America. The Sun is shining, the mockingbirds are singing the songs of lots of other woodland creatures, and it is Independence Day. This pinup is by Tristan Thompson, no addition needed.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Sultan Knish notes a black woman abandoned by her black father and raised by her white mother calling white people awful
  2. The American Conservative covers the defining question for Americans on the 4th of July
  3. White House Dossier features Excitable Jen Psaki saying you don’t like hot dogs if you poo-poo the 16 cents Biden has saved you
  4. The First Street Journal covers Sleepy Joe yammering on about “heat inequity”
  5. The Hayride notes that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice
  6. The Lid recommends reading the Declaration of Independence
  7. The People’s Cube has People’s Karaoke, feature the Madman In The Corner
  8. The Right Scoop discusses what Unhinged Liz Cheney voted for and is joining
  9. This ain’t Hell… features a Gold Star mom discussing Independence Day
  10. Virtual Mirage discusses this day of celebration
  11. Powerline highlights a judge ordering Minneapolis to hire more police (good luck with that)
  12. Pacific Pundit covers CNN providing Chinese Communist Party propoganda
  13. MOTUS A.D. straight up says Happy Birthday, America!
  14. Moonbattery covers French President Macron worried about imported Wokeness from America
  15. And last, but not least, Legal Insurrection shows Americans choose travel and freedom over Delta variant panic

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page (nope, that’s gone, the newest Apache killed access, and the program hasn’t been upgraded since 2014). While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me.

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. And do you have a favorite blog you can recommend be added to the feedreader?

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup – Independence Day Edition »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Happy Independence Day: NY Times Says American Flag No Longer Unites

By William Teach July 4, 2021 – 8:17 am

How many of you are surprised at all that the Paper Of Record would find a way to crap on the flag and the nation on Independence Day?  Many news outlets are finding ways to get a bit moonbat for July 4th, because they are leftist America haters, such as the Washington Post, which trots out

Readers tell how they will choose to celebrate or ignore the Fourth of July

The NY Times takes the cake for major media outlets with this

A Fourth of July Symbol of Unity That May No Longer Unite

The American flag flies in paint on the side of Peter Treiber Jr.’s potato truck, a local landmark parked permanently on County Route 48, doing little more, he thought, than drawing attention to his family’s farm.

Until he tried to sell his produce.

At a local greenmarket where he sells things like wild bergamot, honey and sunflowers, he had trouble striking a deal until, he said, he let his liberal leanings slip out in conversation with a customer.

“She said, ‘Oh, whew. You know, I wasn’t so sure about you, I thought you were some flag-waving something-or-other,’” Mr. Treiber, 32, recalled the woman saying and citing his potato truck display. “That’s why she was apprehensive of interacting with me.”

He paused: “It was a little sad to me. It shows the dichotomy of the country that a flag can mean that. That I had to think, ‘Do I need to reconsider having that out there?’”

If you don’t like the flag, a major symbol of our nation, why are you here? Leave.

Politicians of both parties have long sought to wrap themselves in the flag. But something may be changing: Today, flying the flag from the back of a pickup truck or over a lawn is increasingly seen as a clue, albeit an imperfect one, to a person’s political affiliation in a deeply divided nation.

What party affiliation does it denote?

Supporters of former President Donald J. Trump have embraced the flag so fervently — at his rallies, across conservative media and even during the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol — that many liberals like Mr. Treiber worry that the left has all but ceded the national emblem to the right.

What was once a unifying symbol — there is a star on it for each state, after all — is now alienating to some, its stripes now fault lines between people who kneel while “The Star-Spangled Banner” plays and those for whom not pledging allegiance is an affront.

Conservatives aren’t embracing the flag any more than normal. We respect the flag, we love the flag, and we love what the flag stands for, the federal republic of the United States Of America. It stands for freedom, liberty, a “can do!” attitude, for a country that rose from breaking away from the British empire and becoming the most powerful nation on Earth within less than 200 years, one of the few which truly guarantees Free Speech, Religion, Protest, and Petitioning for Redress Of Grievance. Yes, America has flaws and problems, just like ever person, city, and nation.

It’s Democrats who seem to hate the flag, because they hate America. At lest the unhinged, barking moonbat base is in apoplexy. But, the standard, “I’m just a Democrat” voter is becoming more and more anti-flag as time goes on, and are willing to tell you so.

And it has made the celebration of the Fourth of July, of patriotic bunting and cakes with blueberries and strawberries arranged into Old Glory, into another cleft in a country that seems no longer quite so indivisible, under a flag threatening to fray.

So leave. Don’t let the red, white, and blue door hit you in the ass on the way out.

About 70 percent of Americans say the flag makes them feel proud, according to a recent survey by YouGov, a global public opinion and data research firm, and NBCLX, a mobile information platform. The sentiment was shared by about 80 percent of white Americans, just under 70 percent of Hispanic Americans and slightly less than 60 percent of Black Americans.

While the Times attempts to tell us just how darned controversial the American flag is, the poll shows it isn’t that bad. From that poll

About seven in 10 (72%) Americans say the American flag makes them feel proud. Americans under 35 (56%) are less likely than those who are 35-to-54 years old (71%) or 55 and older (67%) to say the flag makes them feel proud.

There are also differences when it comes to race: most white Americans (79%) say the flag makes them feel proud, while fewer Hispanic Americans (67%) and Black Americans (59%) feel the same way.

Similarly, Americans who are white are more likely than Black and Hispanic Americans to say they feel comfortable walking through a neighborhood with a lot of American flags displayed. While 56% of white people say they are very comfortable with this, fewer Hispanic people (39%) and Black people (26%) feel as comfortable doing so.

I’m 100% comfortable with walking in a neighborhood with tons of American flags. The poll does not break that part down by Party affiliation.

Republicans are considerably more likely than Democrats to associate the American flag with the adjectives patriotic (77% vs 54%), proud (67% vs 46%), and normal (49% vs 32%).

So, just 54% of Democrats find the flag to be patriotic. Let that sink in. Take the poll in a few years, especially when a Democrat isn’t in the White House, and see if that drops.

Read: Happy Independence Day: NY Times Says American Flag No Longer Unites »

Posted in American Flag, Barking Moonbats | 25 Comments | Trackback URL

To Stop Climate Crisis (scam), Americans Must Reduce Their Energy Use By 90%

By William Teach July 3, 2021 – 3:00 pm

Who’s going to make this happen?

To Stop Climate Change Americans Must Cut Energy Use by 90 Percent, Live in 640 Square Feet, and Fly Only Once Every 3 Years, Says Study

In order to save the planet from catastrophic climate change, Americans will have to cut their energy use by more than 90 percent and families of four should live in housing no larger than 640 square feet. That’s at least according to a team of European researchers led by University of Leeds sustainability researcher Jefim Vogel. In their new study, “Socio-economic conditions for satisfying human needs at low energy use,” in Global Environmental Change, they calculate that public transportation should account for most travel. Travel should, in any case, be limited to between 3,000 to 10,000 miles per person annually.

Vogel and his colleagues set themselves the goal of figuring out how to “provide sufficient need satisfaction at much lower, ecologically sustainable levels of energy use.” Referencing earlier sustainability studies they argue that human needs are sufficiently satisfied when each person has access to the energy equivalent of 7,500 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per capita. That is about how much energy the average Bolivian uses. Currently, Americans use about 80,000 kWh annually per capita. With respect to transportation and physical mobility, the average person would be limited to using the energy equivalent of 16–40 gallons of gasoline per year. People are assumed to take one short- to medium-haul airplane trip every three years or so.

You’re down with all this in your own lives, right, Warmists? You’re happy to comply, right?

In addition, food consumption per capita would vary depending on age and other conditions, but the average would be 2,100 calories per day. While just over 10 percent of the world’s people are unfortunately still undernourished, the Food and Agriculture Organization reports that the daily global average food supply now stands at just under 3,000 calories per person. Each individual is allocated a new clothing allowance of nine pounds per year, and clothes may be washed 20 times annually. The good news is that everyone over age 10 is permitted a mobile phone and each household can have a laptop.

Still good, Warmists? You want to live this life, right? Who is supposed to make all this happen? The study avoids mentioning the answer.

Vogel and his colleagues are undaunted by the fact that there are absolutely no examples of low-energy societies providing decent living standards—as defined by the researchers themselves—for their citizens. So they proceed to jigger the various provisioning factors until they find that what is really needed is a “more fundamental transformation of the political-economic regime.” That fundamental transformation includes free government-provided high-quality public services in areas such as health, education, and public transport.

There aren’t any, not during this time period. What might have been considered decent living standards hundreds of years ago with no energy aren’t these days.

“We also found that a fairer income distribution is crucial for achieving decent living standards at low energy use,” said co-author Daniel O’Neill, from Leeds’ School of Earth and Environment. “To reduce existing income disparities, governments could raise minimum wages, provide a Universal Basic Income, and introduce a maximum income level. We also need much higher taxes on high incomes, and lower taxes on low incomes.”

Two things that humanity for sure doesn’t need according to the study are economic growth or the continued extraction of natural resources such as oil, coal, gas, or minerals. Vogel concluded: “In short, we need to abandon economic growth in affluent countries, scale back resource extraction, and prioritize public services, basic infrastructures and fair income distributions everywhere.” He added, “In my view, the most promising and integral vision for the required transformation is the idea of degrowth—it is an idea whose time has come.”

Oh, so a completely political study. Who’s actually making money which low energy and no travel? Where’s it coming from for all this stuff with no economic growth? What would really be massive devolution of economies.

Read: To Stop Climate Crisis (scam), Americans Must Reduce Their Energy Use By 90% »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 3, 2021 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrendous fossil fueled vehicle causing buildings to collapse, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on “Hercules” explaining the 400,000 reasons why you should stand for the national anthem and respect the flag.

Going right into Independence Day weekend in appropriate style.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Army Looks To Mandate COVID Vaccines For All Service Members In September

By William Teach July 3, 2021 – 1:00 pm

The Army is expecting that at least one or more of the current COVID vaccines will be fully approved by the FDA by September. What they aren’t saying is what the penalty will be for non-compliance

Prepare for mandatory COVID vaccines in September, Army tells commands

The Army has directed commands to prepare to administer mandatory COVID-19 vaccines as early as Sept. 1, pending full Food and Drug Administration licensure, Army Times has learned.

The directive came from an execute order sent to the force by Department of the Army Headquarters.

Army Times obtained a portion of a recent update to HQDA EXORD 225-21, COVID-19 Steady State Operations.

“Commanders will continue COVID-19 vaccination operations and prepare for a directive to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for service members [on or around] 01 September 2021, pending full FDA licensure,” the order said. “Commands will be prepared to provide a backbrief on servicemember vaccination status and way ahead for completion once the vaccine is mandated.”

The Army won’t comment on the validity of the leaked policy, but, come on, it rings true, especially with Sleepy Joe stooges in charge. So far, around 70% have been vaccinated. What happens to the other 30%?

The Veterans Affairs administration is currently weighing a plan to require all VA staffers to receive the vaccine, amid growing worry worldwide about the more severe Delta variant of the virus.

The Navy also recently told sailors to expect a mandatory vaccination program despite having the highest vaccine acceptance rate thus far.

The Navy is at 72%, with 80% having had at least one shot. The Air Force is at 61%, the Marines at 40%, and the VA has around 70% vaccinated. Will service members be given a discharge if they refuse to take it? Will it be honorable, less than honorable, or dishonorable? What about members who have been in for 10+ years, higher ranking officers and non-commissioned officers, who bring lots of value to Army and other branch operations?

Read: Army Looks To Mandate COVID Vaccines For All Service Members In September »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus | Comments Off on Army Looks To Mandate COVID Vaccines For All Service Members In September | Trackback URL

Top French Court Tells French Government It Has 9 Months To Do Something About Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach July 3, 2021 – 7:50 am

Most courts have generally avoided telling the administrative and legislative branches what to do about ‘climate change’, saying that it is the responsibility of those branches, usually the legislative, rather than court imposed solutions. Because they aren’t there to make policy. But, this top French court is demanding that France Do Something

Top court gives French government nine months to act on climate change

France’s highest administrative council on Thursday told the government to act now against climate change to ensure it meets comments on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or else it could face potential fines.

The Conseil d’Etat, which acts as a legal adviser to the executive and as the supreme court for administrative justice, last November, gave the government three months to show it was enacting climate policies that make attainable a target of reducing greenhouse gases by 40% of their 1990 levels by 2030.

Nearly eight months later, it said that target still looked unattainable unless new measures were taken swiftly.

“The Conseil d’État therefore instructs the government to take additional measures between now and March 31, 2022, to hit the target,” the council said.

A spokesperson for the council said it would assess the state’s actions after the deadline and could issue a fine if measures fell short of what was necessary.

So the government will fine the government if the government fails to take action? What actions does the court recommend?

The Conseil d’Etat’s stance has raised questions about credentials of President Emmanuel Macron as a champion of fighting climate change ad affirms the binding nature of greenhouse gas reduction targets contained in legislation.

It didn’t. It waded heavily into politics, though. No measures were suggested or recommended. One thing the government could do would be to remove the air conditioning and heat for the offices of the court. Disallow the use of fossil fuels for the court’s business and declare employees of the court can no longer own a fossil fueled vehicle and are not allowed to take fossil fueled flights. No meat on court property. Sounds fair, right?

Greenpeace France hailed what it called “a clear ultimatum issued in the face of the government’s inaction over climate change.”

Should a court be declaring an ultimatum that could significantly increase the cost of living while reducing their freedom, liberty, and choice, in a nation that has already implemented lots of measures that have already done the same?

Read: Top French Court Tells French Government It Has 9 Months To Do Something About Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Hot Take: AOC Blames Olympics Marijuana Ban On “Racism And Colonialism”

By William Teach July 3, 2021 – 7:37 am

Sha’Carri Richardson has taken full responsibility for her use of marijuana, knowing full well that it was against the international rules. It is actually a refreshing attitude these days, where people Blame Someone Else for their own actions. And, is it dumb for someone to be banned for use of marijuana? IMO, yes. She could have gotten blackout drunk constantly in the wake of her mother’s death, and alcohol is a way worse drug than pot. But, it is legal. And along comes AOC, who of course has to say something

AOC says Olympic ban on marijuana is ‘instrument’ of racism following Black track star’s suspension

New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed Friday the rule barring marijuana use during the Olympic races was an “instrument of racist and colonial policy.”

The congresswoman’s comments followed the announcement that U.S. champion Sha’Carri Richardson will not be running in the 100-meter race after she tested positive for THC, a chemical found in marijuana, at the Olympic trials – voiding her first-place results.

Richardson, a Black woman from Texas, was given a one-month suspension, which precludes her ability to race the 100 in Tokyo but means she could still be in the running for the women’s relay race, as the trial will not be held until after July 27.

The 21-year old runner’s suspension was reduced to one month from three because she agreed to participate in a counseling program.

“The criminalization and banning of cannabis is an instrument of racist and colonial policy,” Ocasio-Cortez said Friday. “The IOC [International Olympic Committee] should reconsider its suspension of Ms. Richardson and any athletes penalized for cannabis use.”

Plenty of others have been suspended for use of marijuana. Remember Michael Phelps? He wasn’t caught with it in his system, just a picture of him smoking, which he admitted to. Was that colonial? How is Richardson being suspended a colonial policy? Does this go back to the colonial days when the British implemented a ban on slaves using marijuana? Seriously, this lady is wackadoodle. She seemingly has just pulled words out of the air to yammer for the heck of it. Obviously, AOC will not expand on how, exactly, this ban, which has been enforced on plenty of other athletes, ones who knew the policy, is raaaaacist and colonial.

Is the suspension dumb in 2021? Yes. But, it’s the rules. Excitable Allahpundit notes that even Matt Gaetz thinks it’s dumb, and notes that marijuana in no was is a performance enhancing drug. And the rules may be rather thin on use of a drug, but, it is a drug. It is known that it is banned. Athletes know this. Even Allah, who was utterly Broken by the Trump era, gets silly

What is and isn’t banned seems arbitrary, in other words. And arbitrariness is a bad look when you’re depriving a 21-year-old of a chance to be the best in the world at what she does.

It has been banned for a long time. Call it arbitrary, it’s known. It’s not a bad look, it’s not racism, it’s not colonialism. It’s a known rule. If you get fired from your job for using it, well, you knew the rules.

Read: Hot Take: AOC Blames Olympics Marijuana Ban On “Racism And Colonialism” »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats, Sports | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Time Magazine: AC Is Really Bad For ‘Climate Change’, Here’s How Government Can Take It Away

By William Teach July 2, 2021 – 3:00 pm

With it being summer and people using more air conditioning, Time Magazine is very upset. Not upset enough for them to give up their office AC, of course

A/C Feels Great, But It’s Terrible for the Planet. Here’s How to Fix That

For the past few days, a heatwave has glowered over the Pacific Northwest, forcing temperatures in the region to a record-breaking 118ºF. Few people in the region—neither Americans nor Canadians—have air-conditioning. Stores sold out of new AC units in hours as a panicked public sought a reasonable solution to the emergency. Unfortunately, air-conditioning is part of what’s causing the unusual heatwave in the first place.

We came close to destroying all life on Earth during the Cold War, with the threat of nuclear annihilation. But we may have come even closer during the cooling war, when the rising number of Americans with air conditioners—and a refrigerant industry that fought regulation—nearly obliterated the ozone layer. We avoided that environmental catastrophe, but the fundamental problem of air conditioning has never really been resolved.

This comes via Jazz Shaw, who writes

As I said, the article begins with the history of air conditioning and how it was originally invented for industrial purposes rather than personal cooling. It then steps through the various incarnations of cooling technology… at great length. Finally, at the very end, we get to the big reveal. What do we do about it? Here you go.

The troubled history of air-conditioning suggests not that we chuck it entirely but that we focus on public cooling, on public comfort, rather than individual cooling, on individual comfort. Ensuring that the most vulnerable among the planet’s human inhabitants can keep cool through better access to public cooling centers, shade-giving trees, safe green spaces, water infrastructure to cool, and smart design will not only enrich our cities overall, it will lower the temperature for everyone. It’s far more efficient this way.

To do so, we’ll have to re-orient ourselves to the meaning of air-conditioning. And to comfort. Privatized air-conditioning survived the ozone crisis, but its power to separate—by class, by race, by nation, by ability—has survived, too. Comfort for some comes at the expense of the life on this planet.

It’s time we become more comfortable with discomfort. Our survival may depend on it.

By we, they mean you. Not themselves at Time. And who will force people to re-orient themselves? Government, of course! You should no longer have privatized air condition. Just get used to discomfort, peons.

Anyway, a couple other things from the article below the fold

Read More »

Read: Time Magazine: AC Is Really Bad For ‘Climate Change’, Here’s How Government Can Take It Away »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Climahypocrites, Energy, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 2, 2021 – 1:00 pm

…is a hazy day from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on “Entitled Progressive White Male Governor Bullies Minority Woman to Bend the Law on His Behalf”

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

CNN Seems Pretty Upset About SCOTUS Voting Decision

By William Teach July 2, 2021 – 10:30 am

I’m guessing the people in the airports got to see the report

Supreme Court deals blow to American democracy

crying democratEight years ago, the US Supreme Court gutted a major portion of the Voting Rights Act in its infamous Shelby County v. Holder decision, making it easier for states with a history of voter discrimination to enact new onerous voting rules. States like Georgia and Texas took notice, passing strict new voter ID laws, absentee ballot rules and a host of other provisions that make it harder for some people to vote.

Yeah, because it was pretty much unconstitutional at this point. The majority of Americans support voter ID and other measures which verify that the person voting is exactly that person and is eligible to vote.

Also, we aren’t a democracy. If Democrats, the party of slavery, Jim Crow, blocking blacks from voting, and so forth, really want to protect the system, let’s get rid of the 17th Amendment and go back to when Senators were appointed by state general assemblies.

The Court just doubled down on that attack on the right to vote.

The specific Arizona laws at issue in the Brnovich case, which the Court just decided by a 6-3 vote that fell on predictable ideological lines, are less momentous than the rule the Court laid down for future Voting Rights Act cases. Still, while upholding the Arizona laws, the Court made it much harder for voting rights advocates to protect against racial discrimination.

Yup, CNN’s Joshua A. Douglas went with the raaaaacism angle. Funny how Leftists don’t think blacks can vote like everyone else in 2021, that they need the Government to provide protection. That blacks can’t obtain proper identification.

Voting rights plaintiffs had filed suit against two Arizona laws: one says that a vote will not count if a voter goes to the wrong precinct and then, finding their name not in the poll books, fills out a provisional ballot. The other limits who can collect and return completed ballots, also known to opponents as ballot harvesting. The plaintiffs argued that the laws violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting rules that have the effect of making it harder for minority voters to cast a ballot that will count.

Wait, Douglas, and the rest of the Dems, are upset that the state is limiting who can pick up ballots, protecting the integrity of the ballots? Huh.

Rather than continuing with the long, whiny screed, which fails to once again note that we do not have a Democracy and that the Constitution deems that States have the power to enact most of their own voting rules, let’s go to National Review (yes, full of Never Trumpers, but, they tend to be correct and not losing their minds when Trump isn’t involved)

A Good Day for Free Speech and Free Elections

Legal constitutionalists and political conservatives have had reason to be disappointed at times with the Roberts Court, but today is not one of those days. The Court concluded its 2020-21 term with a pair of 6-3 rulings written by George W. Bush’s appointees (Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito) and joined by all six Republican appointees to the Court. Both reached the right conclusions. Both will advance the progress of the law toward a vibrant space for democracy, by protecting free speech and free and fair elections. (I’m skipping past the part related to California)

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee upheld two Arizona laws that are common across many states: a ban on counting provisional ballots if they are cast in person in the wrong precinct, and a ban on “ballot harvesting,” preventing activist groups from collecting and handling another person’s completed mail-in ballot. Both types of rules are regularly decried as “voter suppression” by hysterical Democrats. The Court properly found that Arizona had a legitimate interest both in assigning voters to precincts and in protecting the sanctity of the secret ballot from the threat of voter intimidation or fraud presented by third parties handling ballots. (snip)

The Court’s renewed focus on the language of the law passed by Congress, and its guidance in how to apply it in practice, is welcome. The doors of the federal courthouse should always remain open to protect all Americans — and black Americans in particular, given the nation’s painful history — from laws that result in real discrimination in who is able to vote. But federal law was never intended to put every state in the Union in a permanent straitjacket to the point where even temporary emergency voting rules adopted to manage a once-in-a-century pandemic can never be revisited. Brnovich is bad news for junk lawsuits such as the Justice Department’s suit against Georgia. But it is good news for letting the people’s representatives protect free, fair, open, and orderly elections. Trust in democracy requires nothing less.

Even NRO drops “democracy”. It’s an easy term in this case, meant to denote being able to vote. Anyhow, SCOTUS noted that there is nothing in the Voting Rights Act that precludes states from putting mild inconveniences on voters in order to protect the sanctity of the vote.

Read: CNN Seems Pretty Upset About SCOTUS Voting Decision »

Posted in Constitution, Current Affairs, Democrats | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove