WOOF! Watchdogs of Our Freedom


In "Gunning for success" forum on January 17, 2013 at 6:14 am


New York State’s annual State of the State address this month turned into an especially distasteful venture into unmanly hysterics during which a clearly irrational Andrew Cuomo seemed to squeal, gasp, and shriek a weird assortment of a-tonal imprecations at gun owning “extremists” whom, however he envisioned them, he clearly and emphatically hated. Even more crazily, the Governor seemed driven by the ironic idée fixe that destroying the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution would be the most patriotically uplifting project to which New Yorkers could possibly commit themselves in the coming year, surpassing even Gay marriage and legalization of pot in this respect.  After spending the better part of the week sputtering about confiscation, the Governor proceeded to insist that this was not about “taking away people’s guns,” but was merely about “sweeping” gun control reforms in New York. In his speech, which was yelped at a frantic decibel level that might have been somewhat less unnecessary had microphones not been available, the Governor cried, “I own a gun! I own a Remington shotgun! I’ve hunted, I’ve shot! That’s not what this is about! It’s about ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles– That’s what this is about!” The Governor did not say what a “high capacity assault rifle” is, or where he believed such weapons to be stashed in his state, but he did manage to add that “No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer! …End this madness now!” Insouciant of his own plea, he raved for several more minutes, finally making time to mention the need for a women’s equality act, more Gay marriage, and the legalization of marijuana. But that’s not important now.

cuomo two

An unseemly display of histrionics by a man terrified of–Bambi?! Whitaker Chambers, please call your office!

Predictably, the monolithically left-wing media found the Governor’s histrionics impressive. Commentators assured one another that Cuomo had put himself center stage for his party’s 2016 nomination for the presidency, and proven himself a statesman of exemplary courage and clarity fit for higher station. WOOF doesn’t understand how grownups manage to tell each other this kind of pish and tosh without choking in mid-hyperbole, but WOOF does understand that Governor Cuomo is a babbling dizzard of the first order, and somebody needs to tell him so—so, hey Governor Cuomo—regardless of what all those televised blown-dry panty wastes are saying about you, you’re a…well, just read back to the previous sentence and that’s what you are. No offense; it’s just that being Governor of New York you might go quite a while, blathering pointlessly

Andrew Cuomo comes undone--the crowd goes wild!

Andrew Cuomo comes undone–the crowd goes wild!

out there before anybody else warned you about yourself!  See, Governor, deer don’t shoot kids in schools. Deer don’t break into families’ homes, deer don’t jack cars, deer don’t rob us at the point of a weapon, deer don’t rape women; deer, Governor, are just a lot more innocent than you seem to think. Few of us are armed to protect ourselves from deer, Governor Cuomo—in fact you may be the only person we know who is armed to protect himself from deer. The vast majority of us out here, whether we hunt or do not hunt, own guns that were specifically designed to kill people, because killing people who are attempting to kill us is still legal in most states—possibly even in yours!  And because progressive policies like yours and those of your political ilk have made society a very unsafe place for those of us who don’t travel with body guards, we prefer to take necessary precautions. So can we drop all this “rights of hunters and sportsmen” humbug and focus on why the founders gave us a second amendment?  They gave us the second amendment mainly because they also knew that deer don’t attempt to subvert and abridge the rights of a free people. Tyrants do. Tyrants, Governor, and oleaginous two-bit politicos with nothing between their ears but tax-and-spend liberalism and that set of dark, totalitarian visions that it amuses you to call “progressive.”

2010--Harry holds onto a gun, his NRA endorsement, and his seat.

2010–Harry holds onto a gun, his NRA endorsement, and his seat.

Remember a few weeks ago when WOOF told you bluntly that Harry Reid would lead the charge to grab your guns? Many of you told us not to worry. You told us that while Harry might be as shifty as a shite-house rat, and crazily far left on virtually every other position under the sun, we didn’t have to worry about his position on the second amendment. Old Harry was solid as Gibraltar on that point, you assured us.  But only this week Reid’s staff told reporters that his long-held pro-gun position was “evolving.” And do you know what it means when a liberal says he’s “evolving,” Woofketeers? It means he’s getting ready to publicly take a position that reflects what his true views have been all along. Remember when President Obama had to go evolve in order to support men marrying men?  (And just to be fair, women marrying women, which doesn’t seem quite as yucky, but still–!)  And if you don’t think Harry Reid is going to drop his pro-gun pretense in time for the final putsch toward an unarmed, subservient America, you’re delusional. We still like you and everything, especially those of you who are serially deceived Nevadans– but you’re still delusional! And if you think Harry has been pro-gun thus far in the course of his illustrious career, try popping over to Gun Owners of America’s website (we have the link below) and checking out their detailed history of Harry’s voting record on the issue! Or just go to http://gunowners.org/is-harry-reid-pro-gun-or-anti-gun.htm  Yes, we know you keep reading stuff about Harry pooh-poohing an assault weapons ban, but when he says these things, have you noticed his lips are moving? The surest sign that Harry Reid is being untruthful is his lips moving! Today found Harry making favorable noises about an “assault weapons ban” being on the Senate agenda. To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton regarding a different Utopian socialist, one can lie in bed at night and hear Harry Reid evolve.

Harry Reid evolving--an actual photo.

Harry Reid evolving–actual photo.

Meanwhile, we have the painfully familiar sight of Dianne Feinstein, who wouldn’t know a derringer from a panzerfaust, storming to center stage in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy. As anyone who has observed Senator Feinstein in full bombast is aware, she is never so much in her glory as when she can maladroitly hoist some formidable-looking firearm while wearing her most sternly sanctimonious countenance, and proceed to declaim on the hazards of “assault rifles,” which terminology she has of late changed to “assault weapons” she having apparently at last absorbed the fact that almost nobody in America can legally own the former, or realistically define the latter.  The beauty of a war on “assault weapons,” clearly, is that nobody knows what they are, and this means that liberal pontificators can claim them to be whatever they prefer.  This worked well enough to bring about the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Yes, that’s right—we already banned assault weapons, but apparently psychotic killers don’t read the papers, or else they appear not to have cared. A study conducted by the Department of Justice and the National Institute for Justice in 2004 declared that the assault weapons ban had “no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury.” So, Feinstein has decided with impeccable liberal logic, it is high time to ban assault weapons some more!

Feinstein armed

See? It’s an assault weapon! Feinstein strikes her favorite show and tell pose.

The bill she has proposed this time to really, really, ban assault weapons, whatever they are, is intended to halt the 1) sale, 2) transfer, 3) importation and 4) manufacturing of military-style assault weapons, handguns, and shotguns as well as high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. It further demands a ban on weapons capable of holding more than 10 rounds (which means bullets, for you liberal readers), presumably because you don’t need ten “bullets” to kill a deer. But while Feinstein’s hysterics are music to the ears of her San Francisco peanut gallery, and while Cuomo’s ululations may win him the hearts of the New York Times and the Penthouse Mensheviks of Manhattan, they are not likely to match the mood of Congress precisely, not even a Congress laden with cowardly, inside-the-beltway con-swerve-atives (and don’t think they all shambled off with Dick Lugar—there is no reason to think that Marco Rubio, Chuck Grassley or Rep. Jack Kingston –just to name a few—won’t side with the gun banners given

Maybe it'll work this time!

Maybe it’ll work this time!

half a chance). So ramming “sweeping gun control reforms” through the legislative bodies might prove difficult. Normally, of course, this would mean the Second Amendment is safe—but not with Our Beloved Helmsman in the Oval Office….the first President in history to routinely ignore and openly disparage the constitution and even the courts is not likely to be slowed down by a recalcitrant legislative branch.

After the tortuous kabuki theater of Joe Biden spending days upon days meeting with the aggrieved, the anti-gun, the civic minded, and just for giggles with some pro-gun advocates, all the while taking pains to simulate comprehending what any of them were saying to him, the Vice President grandly approached President Obama with his “gleanings”—which gleanings had been placed in his hand by the leftists at the subversive think tank, Center for American Progress, before he’d ever met with anybody—trust us!  Thus Joe was saved the agony of having to contemplate anything, or even of paying strict attention to anyone—he was simply tasked with handing the preconceived program to the President, who accepted the hand-off and declared that a day would pass and then, surrounded by an army of children, (just to make the scene as cloyingly fulsome as possible) Our Beloved Helmsman will unfold his plan, and make it plain that many of the conditions, in order to be implemented (for the children, of course) must be implemented by Presidential directive. And what is a Presidential Directive?

Again with the big words! How many more days of this? Joe's show committee grinds along.

Again with the big words! How many more days of this? Joe’s show committee grinds along.

Correctly understood a Presidential Directive is an executive order issued by the President with the advice and consent of the National Security Council. Such directives are intended to define or orchestrate the executive’s national security policy and as such they carry the “full force and effect of law.” Bill Clinton abused this power frequently and nobody particularly objected, so Obama has evidently concluded that he can usurp congressional authority by issuing directives  to suit his every whim. But the constitutional separation of powers does not allow for such broad use. While the President may constitutionally issue a decree to carry out a particular action committed to his discretion by the Constitution or by a lawful statute passed by Congress, this does not mean he can slice through the separation of powers and usurp congressional authority. If the President attempts this, he is breaking the law and assaulting the very Constitution he is sworn to protect—an impeachable offense, in a time when grown ups were in charge. But today?

October 1789, Washington uses a Presidential Directive to proclaim the first national day of thanksgiving.

October 1789, Washington uses a Presidential Directive to proclaim the first national day of thanksgiving.

So this morning we have the spectacle of our Dear Leader, surrounded by der kinder and their beaming parents, speechifying from the White House, enjoining the nation to help him end the scourge of gun violence. Next we were treated to the high comedy of Janet Napolitano over at Homeland Security releasing a statement that she’ll be “proud to support” the Obama administration’s efforts to “combat gun violence in our country.”  Should someone tell this nanoid intellect that she is the Obama Administration? And how do she and Our Beloved Helmsman propose to ensure our safety? By disarming the honest citizenry and neutralizing that pesky Constitution, of course—but they daren’t directly say so. Instead, as predicted, Obama let loose a flurry of Presidential Directives, 23 in all, most of which are surprising for their mushy inexactitude, such as number thirteen, which directs that efforts be maximized (whatever that means) “to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.” This could obviously be construed to mean anything, from retroactive confiscation of firearms to mandating that every citizen go at all times armed. Additionally it seems to suggest that gun wielding crooks be

Many do not realize that using children to make a political point has a lengthy pidigree

Many do not realize that using children to make a political point has a lengthy pedigree.

punished severely, which the NRA, WOOF, almost all conservatives, Mickey Spillane and Batman have all been demanding for decades while liberals turned a deaf ear. Other directives are laughable for their disingenuousness, such as number fifteen, which posits that “it be clarified that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes,” which will be difficult to clarify indeed, even once that tricky syntax is resolved, inasmuch as the Affordable Care Act prohibits exactly that—but oh well. It seems odd that Obama placed so much emphasis on today’s speech and then held forth, in the event, with such phlegmatic decretals. But in all the mush and vagueness lies the opportunity for much mischief once the lawyerly classes of the Senate and House have an opportunity to do some interpretive parsing, not to mention every fruit loop that Clinton or Obama appointed to a Federal judgeship. So is it time for the citizenry to consider taking up arms against the leviathan of tyranny?

No!  That’s exactly what they expect us to do! Don’t be deceived by the fact that we dwell in a post-modern era in which truth is deemed unimportant compared to perception, and the perception created by the media is that all of this constitution trashing  is quite wonderful. Do not be deceived by the eight or ten “polls” that just fell out of the blue showing that a majority of Americans support the Obama gun control agenda—that’s just liberal pollsters at play. All of this anti-gun business may yet be rebuked by a Congress that fears its constituents far more than it fears Rosie O’Donnell or the Washington Post (which in any case, only they read). Let us confront this issue in Congress and in the courts and see if we can’t stymie the Vast Left Wing Socialist Totalitarian Conspiracy that governs us! Perhaps we can settle this on the floor of Congress and in the judiciary when necessary. Let’s give it the old WOOF try! We can still win this one without “going Sam Adams” on the feds! The NRA has gained a quarter of a million new members in just two weeks, and more will surely follow! The media and the liberal establishment sought to shame gun owners into capitulation, or make pariahs of them; but instead they sent hordes of people flocking to gun stores to arm themselves in accordance with their second-amendment rights! There are plenty of us ready to stand against this tyranny by haranguing our elected representatives to wakefulness, and the new NRA ads assailing the moral hypocrisy of the Left are so “right on” that offended network news pundits are bellowing like branded cows. In fact, the funniest episode of the day was the White House’s reaction to the NRA ad pointing out that Obama’s kids go everywhere with armed protection while their father calls armed protection for most kids wrong.  A studiedly offended White House released a statement that “The President’s kids should not be used as pawns in a political fight.” Apparently, only the kids Obama has flown in as window dressing while he makes his emotion-driven anti-gun speeches should be used as pawns in a political fight. Who knew?

The President is really just high-fiving these momentarily useful children-- it's not how it looks!

The President is really just high-fiving these momentarily useful children– it’s not some kind of weird salute, or anything!

Meanwhile, want to totally mess with BATF, the White House, the congress, and Janet Napolitano? Want to simultaneously be able to stockpile types of ammo less in demand than many of the more popular calibers? WOOF’s own Bang Gunley has suggested getting yourself a “Mare’s Leg” like Steve McQueen (lifelong Republican, by the way) used to carry on the old TV show “Wanted Dead or Alive.” They are, admittedly, expensive, impractical, hard to aim, and totally weird looking, but trying to classify them will drive the Left nuts…and hey, one or two of these exotic works of art kept Steve alive through four entire TV seasons. And the intimidation factor? Now as then: Maximum!

Steve McQueen's "Mare's Leg" circa 1960--confusion to our enemies!

Steve McQueen’s “Mare’s Leg” circa 1960–confusion to our enemies!



Eagle Squadron Productions offers an “authentic 1892 Winchester Mare’s Leg carbine.” Of course the gun on the show was mythic, so “authentic” means it’s made like Steve’s! http://www.eaglesquadronproductions.com/bounty.htm

J.B. Custom markets a “1892 Mares Leg Lever Action Pistol”. ..a fully functional copy of McQueen’s weapon, available in a number of calibers.  http://wildwestmerchandise.com/

Rossi Firearms offers a Mare’s leg under the name Ranch Hand.  The Rossi Ranch Hand is manufactured by Taurus in Brazil. http://www.rossiusa.com/product-details.cfm?id=224&category=17.

Henry Repeating Arms manufactures two versions of the Mare’s Leg.  http://henryrepeating.com/rifle-mares-leg.cfm

This model by ROSSI is called the "Puma"

This model by Rossi is called the “Ranch Hand”

  1. Lies about Gun-control, Truth about the Racist Right!

    It’s about time I threw my hat in this disuccion.

    It is proven beyond doubt ANYONE who hates Barack Obama is a racist!

    Can Barack Obama be impeached for the numerous impeachable offenses he’s committed? He has not committed any, so no

    Is Barack Obama a fraud? No
    Is Barack Obama a dictator? No, he was elected as president
    Does Barack Obama hate America? No

    Is Barack Obama a narcissist? No
    Is Barack Obama an evil man? No
    Is Barack Obama a traitor? No
    Is Barack Obama an Anti-American? No
    Does Barack Obama hate White people? No
    Is Barack Obama a Marxist? No
    Is Barack Obama a communist? No
    Is Barack Obama a pathological liar? No
    Is Barack Obama a Muslim? No

    You racists hypocrites call Obama “shameless” for “using children” to fix gun laws? Here’s a doozy, WHEN DID PLANNING TO BAN CERTAIN GUNS EQUALS “GUN GRAB”!

    As expected the only people who have a problem with it are the party of bigots, extremists, and racists. It’s wrong when the black man does it:

    In 2006, President Bush issued his first veto to block stem cell research legislation that had easily passed the Republican-controlled Senate and House. In front of several families and their “snowflake” children (so named because they “were born from “adopted” frozen embryos that had been left unused at fertility clinics), Bush explained why the other 400,000 embryos would have to stay on ice.

    They’re not taking anything away, census pollers aren’t gonna start confiscating your guns. They’re making it harder for whackos to buy them and getting the completely unnecessary military grade weapons out of civilian reach. Quite frankly, if you vitriolic, conspiracy theorists are the ones so pissed off about all this….I’m *GLAD* President Obama is making changes. I want the right to own a gun, absolutely….but stockpile arsenals is idiotic…of the government is really out to get you, your guns won’t do a bit of good, and neither will your precious constitution.

    The world applauds Obama for being the first President in god-knows-when to actually take practical measures in reducing America’s appalling gun violence problems, as well as showing some balls in standing up to the gun industry/lobby and it’s army of deluded devotees.

    Obama has not exploited anyone is the recent gun control discussion. He has used the Sandy Creek event as an example.

    A problem is congress and the fact that they can be bought by a lobby or association.

    A common sense approach would be to bring everyone together and go through the pros and cons in a step by step fashion…Agreement achieved at each step.

    Extremist views and outliers like some of the leads in the NRA have derailed this type of approach with a disregard for other views.

    comparing him Hitler, Mao, or Stalin is a bit much and is hyperbolic. Frankly it’s just ignorant.

    Obama is not trying to destroy America!

    A fraud? A usurper? He is the legitimately elected President. His birth has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, both through document and newspaper evidence, and as his mother was an American citizen that challenge is moot to begin with.

    The question of his political beliefs is ridiculous. A Marxist or Communist would not have settled for a privately owned hospital system as Obama did. The comparisons to Stalin, Hitler and Mao make the comparators look ignorant and stupid. Where are his death camps? Who has he persecuted? What privately owned resources has he nationalized? Not one!

    Muslims go to the mosque. Obama goes to church. He eats pork and shrimp. Muslims do not. This is another stupid claim made by stupid people who also claim that Reverend Wright has too much influence on him, without for a second thinking how one argument gives the lie to the other.

    As for election fraud, not one shred of evidence has been offered to suggest this either. Quite the opposite in fact, with Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics.

    you constantly roll out photos of dead children killed by drones that were ordered by Obama to kill, but since most of you guys support killing little brown Muslim babies, and soon little black Muslim babies and children in Africa that would be pointless.

    Ad hominem comments and remarks by right-wing conservatives are staples in all of their media outlets, whether print, radio, television, or, especially, on the internet. It’s what they do.

    When they finally realize that they are not winning a particular argument or issue; when they see finally that people just simply do not accept or believe their continual myth-making, and are prepared to ignore, if not punish them for their continued irrationality – they resort to personal attack.like calling our President, the Commander in chief rude, fabricated and juvenile names..

    “He’s not my President” is what you’re gonna say. Yes..ALL racists and bigoted scum like them say that. They don’t considering Anyone who is not WHITE a leader!

    That’s how the racist right works, and that’s how there are ALWAYS gonna work!


  2. So, no “Mare’s Leg” for you, then, we’re guessing….is that right, Questionman? Maybe a WOOF tee-shirt? We’re coming out with those soon– maybe we could even send you a free one if it chilled you out a little? But in the meantime, thank you for reading and commenting! We really do love having you aboard! =0)


  3. Dear Woof – I was wondering if you could read a commentary on gun control that I have come across. My concerns are that it is in fact a liberal piece of propagandized whoo-ha, masquerading (as these things often do) as an enlightened and sensible response to the “gun control” issue. It has gone viral on the internet and social networking sites (perhaps you’ve even seen it yourself on facebook?) Your comments and help in deconstructing this piece would be forever appreciated. -M


    • Okay, Mary, but we’re taking time away from an important investigations of chem trails, fluoride, and the President’s time-traveling visits to Mars in order to respond quickly, so don’t expect a polished rejoinder here–just a few off paw thoughts about the more intelligible points in the Josh Fielder attachment you referenced.

      1. Josh has “spent a lot of time researching gun violence” by reading Salon.com articles, one of which purported to blow the lid off “The Hitler Gun Control Lie” This is where Josh gets his strange ideas—but he’s right when he points out that the oft cited Hitler quote is bogus. Also, do you know that Humphrey Bogart never says “play it again Sam!” in Casablanca? And Brandon De Wilde never exactly yelled “Come back Shane!” for that matter—but anyhow: Hitler didn’t have to tighten up German gun laws, the 1928 laws were draconian enough. Hitler’s 1938 German Weapons Act made it next to impossible for most Germans to own a handgun—but it already was. As Salon asserts, the law liberalized how many people could own guns without permits, but that’s only because all NDSAP (Nazi) party members could now own them. On the other hand it totally forbade Jews to own any type of gun—and it was Jews whom Hitler anticipated exterminating! If the argument is that totalitarian regimes disarm those whom they intend to immiserate, then Hitler is a classic case in point—far from the precursor to Chuck Heston that Salon made him out to be!
      2. Josh says the Presidents kids receive death threats—and WOOF is truly sorry about that. We believe the Presidents children need our prayers, especially after their mamma called them fat, could you believe that? But Josh’s team wants to disarm us all because society is so violent, right? So why do we have to receive death threats before we can be protected? Most psychos don’t send death threats—they just kill people. And we here at WOOF get death threats all the time—so can we have special units assigned to protect us? The idea that whether one has the right to self defense in a free Republic depends on how important one’s Daddy is—well, that’s one of those silly elitist liberal ideas. So occupy that, Josh!
      3. There “is no law currently being considered” that would include confiscation of guns? Josh’s power to psychically intuit what is or isn’t being “considered” is amazing—we hope he’s a stock broker! But Josh, it’s discussed all the time! Do you ONLY read Salon? We live in a freaking cave, Josh, and even we know this! Okay, most recent evidence: The original proposal by NY Democrats on gun control was held up on January 15 because it was feared it might be too much too soon. Dissatisfied with this squeamishness, NY Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin decided to release it on his Facebook page. The first two items are :
      Confiscation of “assault weapons” and “Confiscation of ten round clips.”
      4. The media hides ALL stories of guns being used effectively in self defense, Josh! The only exceptions are when they can paint the image of some bigot shooting some “youth,” and even then the bigot turns out to be Hispanic and the youth turns out to have darned near beaten the Hispanic guy to death…and even then the Washington Post invents its own race and calls the shooter a “white Hispanic.” Josh, buy a copy of Guns & Ammo and read the pages about successful uses of guns in self-defense situations—if you’re as naive as you sound, and you do sound naive, Josh, no offense, that’s just us, but anyway, this could help you get your footing.
      5. Josh doesn’t like some NRA video—okay—we’ve never seen an NRA video because why would we? And if Josh doesn’t want his kids to see NRA videos, he can rest assured they won’t be showing them in health class!
      6. Josh goes on to declare himself disturbed by so much weird stuff that WOOF can’t keep up with all of it—but, um, the US has more guns than “the next seventeen countries” (whatever the next seventeen countries may be!) because we are bigger than they are, Josh—or because they ban guns. Don’t get silly on us! And Josh finds “the fact that more children are killed in the US by guns than in the entire Middle East region, very disturbing.” Now, you don’t have to study statistics at grad level to know that this statement says nothing verifiable. In what time range? How is the “Middle East region” operationalized in the study? Who performed the study? Is it a per capita study or what? People who post sloppy glop like this should be embarrassed to criticize batty baseball bat stats—come on Josh, you made that up! And who says “armed guards” are the only way to stop school shootings? The Israelis do just fine with armed teachers! Or read WOOF’s proposal on this subject, Josh! It’s way better than anyone else’s—of course.

      7. Josh says that “anyone saying “assault weapon” is a made up term (hey, wait a minute, WOOF said that!) should remember that every word in every language is, in fact, made up.” And we say, oh yeah? Oggly-muk-koogle berdies, Josh! Jeesh, fella! What next?

      8. Finally Josh says, “And yes, criminals don’t typically obey laws, but we still have them. Can you use that logic to say there should be none at all?” And then, evidently impatient of our answer, Josh writes, “No.” Again, Josh, you are demonstrating a flare for imprecise thought—or is it just your prose style? We’re at a loss to comprehend what impellent logic derivable from the fact that criminals don’t obey laws would lead anyone to think we should have no laws? We should have more laws, Josh. Laws that state that the use of a gun in a robbery, or in a premeditated homicide or drive-by shooting should be punishable, invariably, by execution. Maybe that’ll be in Presidential Directive 24. But somehow, Josh, we don’t feel you and the Dear Leader are with us on this one. …Josh? Barry?

      So anyhow, Mary—we have to get back to the whole fluoride and chem trail problem now—we checked Josh out through our mammoth data banks at our “Eastern Touchdowns” Foundation and he’s not a bad guy—he isn’t even a dumb guy. He’s a solid citizen, but he’s a Democrat Mary, and that’s why we have the government we have—lots of not-so-bad people who think intensely, but at the approximate depth of dandelion roots. And they all hang out on FACEBOOK, Mary—just sayin’ …


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s