Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Genghis Jhan, US Secretary of State

American Thinker ^ | 1/15/13 | William A Levinson

The United States might just as well send Jared Lee Loughner or, if he was still alive, Adam Lanza, to represent it in the world community, and this is no exaggeration. John Kerry is, per his own admission, a mass murderer just like Loughner and Lanza or, to use his own words, Genghis Khan.


John Kerry: Admitted Felon, Liar, or Both


There is a huge legal difference between an admitted felon and a convicted felon. Neither John Kerry nor Barack Obama's friend William Ayers was ever convicted of a felony, but both said they committed felonies. Ayers said he was "guilty as hell, free as a bird," to which he added, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough." John Kerry was similarly never brought to trial for the things he said he did in Vietnam, but his own admission that he did them should be more than enough to disqualify him from any position of public trust or responsibility.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...




Wal-Mart plans $50 billion 'buy American' push!

Reuters ^ | January 15, 2013

NEW YORK, Jan 15 (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc will buy an additional $50 billion in U.S.-made goods over the next decade in areas like sporting goods and high-end appliances in what the world's largest retailer called a bid to help boost the U.S. economy.

Wal-Mart, the largest private employer in the United States and the world's largest retailer, also said on Tuesday it plans to hire 100,000 newly discharged veterans over the next five years, at a time when the U.S. unemployment rate is at 7.8 percent.

The moves come as the U.S. economy continues to grow slowly 3-1/2 years after the end of a severe recession. An average of $5 billion a year in spending is a drop in the bucket for the $15 trillion U.S. economy, and the question is how many other retailers could do the same.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...

And First Prize for Gall Goes to ... Barack Obama!

Townhall.com ^ | January 15, 2013 | Bill Murchison

Here's the really nice thing about being president of the United States: You can hold a press conference, make any cockeyed statement you like and glare down all critics, inasmuch as you're King of the Microphone.
You can, that is, if you're a certain kind of president. Let's say, theoretically, you're a president like Barack Obama, who, standing before the media on Monday, declared up to be down, red to be green and wolves to resemble sweet little lamb-y pies.
With four more years to run in his engagement with the American people, Obama may yet startle us by representing up to be up, red to be red and wolves to have large teeth. We should not hold our breath. The likelier strategy would be to assume our present president incapable of anything resembling straight talk about his varied strategies, or, where capable of it, unwilling to indulge his hearers.
Where to begin? Raising the debt ceiling, Obama told the media, would "simply allow the country to pay for spending that Congress has already agreed to. These are bills we've already racked up, and we need to pay for them."
This is rich. Congress "racked up" the debt all by itself? Just wrote a bunch of checks and passed them out? The way orange juice turns magically to scotch whiskey, it did. The last time anyone heard, the procedure for voting money is capped by presidential approval -- or veto. Our chief magistrate tried to rein in congressional spending -- how many times? Didn't he indeed demand the money, as in the case of Obamacare?
Then there's the chief's gracious promise "to have a conversation about how we reduce our deficit in a sensible way."
Once more: Where to begin? With the word "conversation"? We can envision a conversation all right. "Why, sit down, Mr. Boehner. Right over there. Now, let's talk about the taxes we're going to raise." The reason we can envision this pleasant chat is that it's already taken place -- quite recently. In one 50-minute session with Speaker Boehner, the president talked 45 minutes. Which, of course, is how he got himself elected -- by talking incessantly about himself. Anyway, the nature of "conversation" in the Obama White House is, basically, let me tell me why you're wrong, whereas I myself am so superlatively (as usual) right.
Indeed, we're at the present pass on debt due to the president's unassailable love of his own ideas, which at the most fundamental level may be described, Robin Hood-fashion, as taking from the "millionaires and billionaires" and giving to friends and retainers of the Democratic Party.
It helps to enjoy absolute control of the microphone when you're spinning incredible -- literally incredible -- narratives concerning your profound grasp of a Vast Challenge. Now and then a mean-spirited reporter, such as CBS's Major Garrett, throws you a curve ball. Garrett, at the Monday press conference, noted Obama's opposition, during his senatorial days, to going along with a request by President George W. Bush to raise the debt ceiling. How about that, sir? Always a quick mover on the political dance floor, our chief magistrate ignored Garrett's attempt to introduce candor into the discussion. Instead he sprayed the Republicans with his special brand of presidential indignation for their willingness to "blow up the economy."
Four years into the Obama Era -- during which federal debt has increased by $5 trillion -- we see presidential innocence as a pose, a pretext, a thespian device. I'm reminded of a wonderful scene in the 1962 movie "Jumbo": Jimmy Durante, accosted while stealing away with an enormous circus elephant.
The inimitable Jimmy flings his arms in front of the beast, rasping out righteously, "What elephant?!"
For unmitigated gall and chutzpah, our present chief magistrate takes various prizes: so far with minimal murmuring from the electorate and next to none from the media. How much longer before the spotlight starts to pick out the contradictions and evasions he has made his political specialty? One can almost hear him: "What evasions?"

Texas Proposal: JAIL Any Federal Officials Trying to Enforce New Gun Restrictions in the State

WOAI Radio ^ | 1/15/2013 | Jim Forsyth

A Texas lawmaker says he plans to file the Firearms Protection Act, which would make any federal laws that may be passed by Congress or imposed by Presidential order which would ban or restrict ownership of semi-automatic firearms or limit the size of gun magazines illegal in the state, 1200 WOAI news reports.
Republican Rep. Steve Toth says his measure also calls for felony criminal charges to be filed against any federal official who tries to enforce the rule in the state.
"If a federal official comes into the state of Texas to enforce the federal executive order, that person is subject to criminal prosecution," Toth told 1200 WOAI's Joe Pags Tuesday. He says his bill would make attempting to enforce a federal gun ban in Texas punishable by a $50,000 fine and up to five years in prison.
Toth says he will file his measure after speaking with the state's Republican Attorney General, Greg Abbott, who has already vowed to fight any federal measures which call for restrictions on weapons possession.
Toth concedes that he would welcome a legal fight over his proposals.
"At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause," he said.
The Supremacy Clause is the portion of the Constitution which declares that federal laws and statutes are 'the supreme law of the land.'
"It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama," Toth said.
Texas is the second state to propose a measure to shield the state from the impact of any gun possession restrictions imposed by Congress or by Presidential order. A similar measure was introduced in Wyoming last week.
Texas breakfast is good anytime of day:)

President Obama's Deceit About The Debt Ceiling

Political Realities ^ | 01/15/13 | LD Jackson

Debt CeilingAt the very least, a sitting President always has one true advantage over his political opponents. Some people call it the bully pulpit, but it is the ability to use his office to make statements, even hold press conferences at the end of their first terms, to push for the policy initiatives they hold near and dear to their heart. Some presidents are better at this than others. Considering that, Barack Obama should be classified as a master of the bully pulpit. He is using it to its full potential and is attacking the Republicans for their stance on the coming debate over the debt ceiling. Yes, his hastily called press conference, which have been few and far between for this President, covered other issues besides the debt ceiling. He mentioned gun control, which will probably get its own time in the sun later in the week, but the main bulk of his remarks had to do with the debt ceiling.
After the fiscal cliff deal was passed and signed into law, many of us who follow these things warned that the fight was not over. The Republicans arguably held a stronger hand, now that higher taxes were off the table, but it turns out that isn't the case. President Obama has made sure everyone who is listening knows he isn't finished with higher taxes. He plainly told the Republicans they had another thing coming if he was going to allow them to make spending cuts, without raising taxes even higher. It was also revealed that the President does not believe our federal government has a spending problem. I call that denying the obvious, but Obama seems to really believe that fallacy.
Ever since the beginning of the year, the President has made it clear he does not intend to negotiate or hold a debate over the debt ceiling. He has made statements that decry such a debate as irresponsible and has flatly said he will not negotiate with Republicans over this issue. He reiterated that position in yesterday's press conference and even went a step further. He is making the claim that if the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling, certain things are likely to happen.

(Washington Post, via The Lonely Conservative) “I’m a pretty friendly guy,” President Obama said near the end of his White House news conference Monday afternoon. The claim might have been a touch more plausible if he hadn’t spent the bulk of the previous hour demonstrating just how adversarial he could be. Indeed, there was no precipitating event that led him to schedule the last-minute session in the East Room — lending credibility to the theory that he summoned reporters so he could bait Republicans.
“If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America’s bills on time, Social Security checks and veterans benefits will be delayed,” the friendly president said, explaining his refusal to negotiate over increasing the debt limit.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out a small fact that has been omitted. Even if the debt ceiling is not raised, the federal government still takes in tax revenue. Some estimates have that revenue at over $200 billion each month. That means the federal government still has money coming in, money that does not have to be borrowed. If I am not mistaken, the Secretary of the Treasury is the Executive Branch official who determines where that money is spent. Simply put, that means one thing. If the debt ceiling is not raised and payments are delayed to anyone, Social Security recipients, veterans, or military personnel, the monkey is on the Obama administration, not the Republicans in Congress. This is just one more example of how President Obama is lying to the American public. By doing so, he can continue his assault on our country and no one seems to be the wiser. That doesn't change that he is lying to us and he is using his bully pulpit and the liberal media to set the hook.

Barack Obama is a Weapon of Mass Distraction!

Townhall.com ^ | January 15, 2013 | David Limbaugh

President Obama's latest news conference was further confirmation that his voracious appetite for spending was not satisfied but whetted by the fiscal cliff deal, which he views as an appetizer.
We were told that the GOP achieved a coup in the fiscal cliff negotiations because they lured Obama into an agreement to lock in the Bush tax rates except for the highest-income earners. Never mind that Obama agreed to no spending cuts or entitlement reform after demanding a "balanced approach" to deficit reduction; they told us he'd be forced to address those matters in a couple of months in the debt ceiling negotiations. They argued that by agreeing to make the Bush rates "permanent," Obama had tacitly admitted that he couldn't sustain the welfare state through tax increases on the middle class and that he'd now have to -- grudgingly or not -- turn his attention to spending cuts and entitlement reform.
As I've written before, I never understood this optimistic outlook, because from the get-go, Obama and his Democratic colleagues swore that they had only begun on the "revenue" side and that they were bound and determined to focus on more revenue extraction in the next round of negotiations.
It is painfully naive to assume that Obama is operating in good faith. Throughout his term, he has rarely focused on the merits of policies he's promoted. He has used various scapegoats to distract the public's attention from the substantive arguments in order to facilitate the results he seeks.
With Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, his many environmental initiatives, his assault on religious liberty and his ruthless opposition to Arizona's immigration law, to name a few, he glossed over the substantive issues involved and demonized his political opponents and certain individuals and interest groups in order to make the outcome turn on personal, rather than policy, considerations. This is the stuff of sheer demagoguery.
Similarly, in the fiscal cliff negotiations, Obama wouldn't permit the discussion to focus on the real issue: our crushing national debt. If that had been his intention, he would have used his presidential bully pulpit to steer the conversation toward the major debt drivers, which are spending and entitlements, not a lack of taxes.
But he barely discussed the debt problem. His gambit was to distract the public's attention from our catastrophic deficits and debt and agitate them against the wealthy, whom he maliciously misrepresented as being responsible for these problems in the first place. He made the discussion not about the debt or deficits but about "fairness." As a result, he succeeded in raising rates (and phasing out personal exemptions and deductions) on the "wealthy" but saw to it that we ignored spending and entitlements.
Now, as we're poised to enter the debt ceiling negotiations, Obama has held a news conference in which he telegraphed that he's going to employ the same type of strategy again: to distract the public's attention from the pressing debt and deficit issues and continue to resist spending cuts and entitlement reform. Indeed, he said he would consider only "modest adjustments" to Medicare and other entitlements. That's it? Modest adjustments? Are you kidding me?
Instead, he aims to spotlight the alleged irresponsibility and partisanship of Republicans who would hold "a gun against the heads of the American people" over the debt limit and not allow him -- the paragon of fiscal responsibility -- to pay our bills and honor "the full faith and credit of the United States." Plus, he will aggressively pursue more "revenues" to close unfair "loopholes."
His purpose is to keep the evil Republicans on the hot seat over their threat not to raise the debt ceiling and over revenue "fairness," all the while claiming he's pushing for a balanced approach, by which he means a completely unbalanced, one-sided approach that focuses on tax increases only, ignores spending cuts and entitlements, and even includes new spending. If his ploy were to succeed, it would guarantee that America would go bankrupt, yet Obama is masquerading as the responsible one. It's surreal, and I swear I wouldn't believe it is occurring if I weren't witnessing it with my own eyes.
It's time for the naive among us to wake up and help in the fight instead of rolling over to this tyranny. Obama is going to continue his fast march toward fundamentally transforming America into a full-blown socialist state while pretending to be a champion of capitalism and representative government. Can those on our side at least quit providing him aid and comfort by refusing to open their eyes to what is happening?
It should now be abundantly clear what Benjamin Franklin meant when he responded to the question of what type of government the Framers had crafted: "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."
Well, can we keep it? Do we even want to keep it?

Averting Default, Achieving Restraint (Here's how to do it if we're serious)

National Review ^ | 01/15/2013 | The Editors

The federal government will hit the statutory limit on its debt within the next two months, and further borrowing would require congressional action. Almost everybody recognizes that such action will need to take place, since no one has proposed a way to end all deficit spending immediately. But Republicans want to make sure that as Congress takes that action it both highlights the problem of overspending and takes steps to address it, while Democrats want to make sure that the problem receives neither attention nor remedy.
To achieve its end, each party has focused on a different element of the debt ceiling. Republicans treat the debt-ceiling vote as a moment to recognize the implications of runaway spending and to bring down the future trajectory of that spending (and therefore of the debt). They want any authorization of future borrowing to be tied to reductions in future spending, so that as we acknowledge how much debt we are amassing, we also do something about it.
Democrats, however, treat the debt ceiling as having basically nothing to do with the future. Past spending decisions are in the past, they say, and now Congress just has to pay for them. The debt ceiling, in their telling, threatens to stand in the way of Congress’s doing so, and especially to thwart debt repayment, raising the prospect of a default on the government’s debts, which would have catastrophic economic effects. As White House spokesman Jay Carney put it recently, “there are only two options to deal with the debt limit: Congress can pay its bills or they can fail to act and put the nation into default.”
The Democrats are treating all federal spending (not only the repayment of past borrowing) as a sacrosanct obligation that cannot be undone. And they insist that attaching any conditions to a debt-ceiling increase would be unprecedented and tantamount to blackmail, even though such conditions have been attached in the past and have resulted in some fiscal reforms (including the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget caps in 1985 and more modest measures in 1996 and 2011).
Republicans should recognize that the prospect of default is the Democrats’ chief weapon in their campaign of avoidance. That prospect is not a source of Republican leverage in the debt-ceiling fight; it is the primary source of the Democrats’ leverage. It is a way to distract the press and the public from the reality of our fiscal crisis.
The Democrats’ strategy offers Republicans an opportunity. Since the Democrats insist that the prospect of default is the reason they will not negotiate about spending restraint, Republicans should begin the debt-ceiling fight by permanently eliminating that prospect, turning the debt-ceiling debate into an argument about future spending rather than past borrowing.
The House should pass a bill to redefine the debt limit so that it constrains primary spending but not debt service. Under this reform, a Treasury that had hit the statutory borrowing limit could continue to borrow what it needed exclusively for paying interest on the national debt and to roll over existing debt obligations, but it could not borrow for any other government spending until the limit had been increased. This would take default entirely off the table.
Other spending would have to be put off or reduced, based on the amount of revenue available at any given time, until the debt limit had been raised. Since debt service now amounts to roughly 8 percent of the budget while the deficit is well over 30 percent, this would mean very significant limits on spending until the debt limit had been increased — whether by a large, across-the-board reduction of remaining spending or a partial shutdown of the relevant government programs and services. Both parties would have a strong incentive to come to agreements that prevented the debt limit from being hit, at least for long.
This proposal would improve, rather than undermine, America’s creditworthiness, as it would both avert any possibility of default and compel a discussion about getting our government finances into order. It would enable Congress to exercise its exclusive Article I authority to borrow while meeting its 14th Amendment obligation to assure “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law.”
Such a move would turn the debt-ceiling debate explicitly into what Republicans already treat it as being: an argument about ongoing government spending and deficits, like the debates about the budget or continuing resolutions, rather than about paying debts incurred for past spending and deficits. Democrats do not want that debate, but would not have an easy time rejecting this proposal. To do so would be to insist that default remain on the table, or else to insist that the president be given an unlimited power to borrow and spend. Surely neither is what the public wants or what the country needs.
What the public wants, and what the country needs, is for the federal government to pay its past debts but reduce its future ones. The debt ceiling should offer an opportunity for a debate about precisely how to do so. By carefully redefining the debt limit in law, Republicans can make sure that discussion takes place. And by then proceeding to offer specific spending cuts coupled with a proportional increase in the debt ceiling, they can help make sure that it ends with our country less in debt and better positioned to prosper.

House GOP Leaders Consider Four-Year Debt Limit Deal

Roll Call ^ | Jan. 14, 2013 | Daniel Newhauser

With the administration’s debt ceiling deadline fast approaching, House Republican leaders are considering a four-year debt limit increase that would take the issue off the table for the rest of President Barack Obama’s presidency.
The plan would, however, come at no easy price for Obama, who pledged as recently as Monday morning not to negotiate with Republicans on a debt ceiling hike. Republicans would demand major tax and entitlement changes — the latter of which has been anathema to many Democrats — and they could also ask for movement on the sequester and an expiring continuing resolution that must be dealt with in the next three months.
The idea was one of many brought up over Sunday and Monday, as Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and his leadership team and staff held a strategy session in Warrenton, Va.
“We have an opportunity to inject years of certainty while doing some fundamental tax reform and entitlement reform,” said Rep. Steve Southerland II of Florida, the sophomore class leadership representative, who was at the meeting.
In addition to the four-year plan, ideas for extending the debt ceiling ranged from a one- or two-year increase to one that would last only 30 or 60 days.
Still, the ultimate decision on which path to take will not be forged until the rank and file have their say at the full conference retreat, which starts Wednesday in Williamsburg, Va. It is a function of the decentralized power that Boehner holds: He sets the agenda, but it is up to his conference whether to accept it.
“We all agreed we need to get the input from our conference on how to move forward,” said Conference Vice Chairwoman Lynn Jenkins of Kansas. “We know we have to be unified because division hinders our ability to get things done.”
The retreat’s theme of “One Conference, Many Voices,” belies just how wounded, fractured and lacking in direction the House Republican Conference is as it enters the 113th Congress. Boehner was rebuffed by his conference in attempts to pass deals to avert the fiscal cliff. And a few members went on to voice votes of no confidence when they tried to mount a coup against Boehner before he was re-elected to the speakership on Jan. 3.
So in that respect, the retreat will be about much more than just the next three months. It will be about defining the next two years. “We have to ask ourselves, ‘What is winning in this scenario?’” a GOP leadership aide said. “We have to ask ourselves, ‘What is the role of the House Republican Conference in an Obama administration?’”
Leadership members realize they have two years worth of legislation to manage, and at the leadership retreat, Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia laid out some of the big-ticket legislation that must be reauthorized, such as a transportation bill and the No Child Left Behind education law.
An immigration overhaul is also on the horizon, and at the conference retreat, Gov. Luis Fortuno of Puerto Rico, once the commonwealth’s resident commissioner in Congress, will share a panel discussion with Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell during which the issue is sure to come up, according to aides.
The conference will also hear from conservative media figures such as Bill Kristol, Ramesh Ponnuru and Kim Strassel. Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and Domino’s Pizza CEO J. Patrick Doyle will also attend.
There is, of course, a recognition that the pressing issues of the day must be dealt with first. Absent an agreement among the conference about how to tackle the debt ceiling, much of the retreat will be devoted to the issue, with large chunks of time allotted for general conference discussion.
While the conservative bloc could possibly back a four-year extension, the concessions they would demand from the other side could end up being more than Democrats want to put on the table.
Meanwhile, temporary debt limit patches might be just as unpalatable to Republicans, who could be open to primary challengers from the right in 2014, and who could rightly claim that members voted several times in a two-year span to raise the debt ceiling.
Some conservative members of the Republican Study Committee believe they should allow the country to pass over the debt limit because they remain skeptical of leadership’s dedication to reduced spending and believe reaching the debt limit would force the cuts immediately, rather than having to rely on cuts down the road, as they did with the 2011 debt limit deal.
“Frankly, it sounds like 2011 all over again. . . . A lot of our guys are just sick of that,” one conservative aide said. “I’m not entirely unconvinced that we’re not heading in the same direction.”
As a result, they will likely push bills, such as those touted by Sen. Patrick J. Toomey, R-Pa., and Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla., that would prioritize spending and allow items at the bottom of the list to be cut if the debt limit is reached. RSC Chairman Steve Scalise of Louisiana alluded to the plan in a Monday statement.
“Hitting the debt ceiling does not immediately trigger a default unless [Obama’s] administration fails to do its job and prioritize our debt payments. Default is not an option unless President Obama and his administration choose it to be,” he said.

Obama warns of 'disaster' if House GOP doesn't raise debt ceiling (Another Obama disaster!)

Yahoo News ^ | 01/14/13 | Linda Feldmann

In the final press conference of his first term, President Obama called on House Republicans to pay the bills Congress has already racked up. He also reiterated that he will not negotiate over the debt ceiling. President Obama warned congressional Republicans Monday that a failure to raise the federal debt ceiling in the next several weeks would spell “disaster” for the US and global economies. And he reiterated his position that he will not negotiate over the debt ceiling. “These are bills that have already been racked up, and we need to pay them,” Mr. Obama said in the last presidential press conference of his first term. “So while I'm willing to compromise and find common ground over how to reduce our deficits, America cannot afford another debate with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they've already racked up.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...

White House tells Paul Ryan it won’t meet budget deadline!

The Hill ^ | 01/14/13 | Erik Wasson

The White House has informed House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that it will miss the legal deadline for sending a budget to Congress.
Acting Budget Director Jeff Zients told Ryan in a letter delivered Friday that the budget will not be delivered by Feb. 4, as required by law.
...
Under the law, President Obama must submit a budget by the first Monday in February, but he has met the deadline only once. The annual budget submission is supposed to start a congressional budgeting process, but that has also broken down. The Senate last passed a budget resolution in 2009.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

Michael Savage: Don't trust feds on flu shot!

World Net Daily ^ | 1-14-13 | Michael Savage

Asking listeners to put aside his political orientation for a moment, talk-radio host Michael Savage questioned the federal government’s recommendation that citizens get a flu shot.

“Did Harry Reid take a flu shot? Did Barack Obama take a flu shot? Did Barack Obama’s lovely family take a flu shot? Did Joe Biden take a flu shot?” Savage asked.

“Which of the mandarins took the flu shot?”

He explained that he was talking specifically about vaccines and was not advocating the avoidance of all pharmaceuticals.
Known for his many books on herbal medicines, Savage acknowledged he has benefited from “an awful lot of life-saving regular medicines.”
“The Flu vaccine?” he asked. “No, I wouldn’t take it.”
Savage noted “not everything your government tells you is true.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

Here's the real unemployment rate!

WND ^ | 1/14/2013 | Jerome R. Corsi


Government's 'headline' statistics hide true conditions

The real unemployment rate for December 2012 is closer to 23 percent, not the 7.8 percent reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, according to economist John Williams.

Here is a more complete unemployment table that includes the seasonally adjusted unemployment percentages for U3 unemployment, as well as the same for U6 unemployment, followed by the ShadowStats Alternative Unemployment rate for both December 2011 and December 2012:



(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

Hand over your weapons!

Posted Image

Anyplace

Posted Image

Salesman of the year!

Posted Image

Nomination

Posted Image

Aren't You Glad?

Posted Image

Idiot Control

Posted Image

Shoe Polisher

Posted Image

Gun Ban List

Posted Image

Things Change?

Posted Image

One More Time!

Posted Image

Leading actor!

Posted Image

Father of the year!

Posted Image

Tongue Stuck?

Posted Image

Big Wabbit

Posted Image

Lives lost

Posted Image

Book of Bodyguards

Posted Image

Payroll Tax

Posted Image

My Gun Permit

Posted Image

That we promise!

Posted Image

Leadership Missing!

Posted Image

He took my wallet!

Posted Image