Not really, but it needed a title, so I picked this one. I skipped out of blogging all week other than the book review so this show might contain something unexpected for you. Enjoy.

Stream it here.

Or download it here.

December 21st, 2008
Categories: Podcasts . Author: trlrtrash13 (My Info) . Comments: 1 Comment

Getting To Vito (The Very Important Top Officer)

Author: Anthony Parinello

Click The Pic To Buy

This book outlines ten ways to “Get To VITO”. Now, since the “Very Important Top Officer” would be the President of the United States, I was hoping this book would tell me how I could get in touch with Barack Obama. Upon judging the cover, however, I quickly determined that that is not what the book is all about. It is actually and outline of how Barack Obama got to be “VITO”. It lists the 10 steps Obama took, which are as follows.

1. Connect with all of the people. This would include, of course, typical white people. Go see the people where they live. Make sure you travel to all 57 States. No State left behind!

2. Get as many voters as possible. In order to do this, Obama paid $800,000 to ACORN to illegally register voters.

3. Never talk about anything substantive. Anytime you are asked a question, just utter some meaningless rhettoric like “hope” or “change” that sounds good but has no real content.

4. Try to do something really important that will make your wife proud to be an American.

5. Ditch any friend that starts slowing you down. Even if it is your Preacher or a close business associate, get rid of them.

6. Pick a career politician who has never amounted to much of anything for your running mate. This way you can always tout his experience, while never getting pushed out of the spotlight in favor of him.

7. Hide your Birth Certificate. Poll after poll shows Americans think people who actually have a copy of their Birth Certificate when they need it are losers.

8. When out campaigning, never walk down a street that a plumber lives on. If you happen to accidentally do so, make sure you spend weeks trashing him and slandering his good name.

9. Say a lot of stupid stuff, that way stupid people will like you and vote for you. If you can’t think of anything stupid to say, just say “uh… uh… uh…” a lot.

10. Say that anyone that doesn’t like you is “clinging to their guns and religion”. Not to their face, of course. It is much more effective to say it behind their back.

So, if you wish to become President, that sure is a handy little list to keep around. You can, as always, click on the picture to buy the book. But of course you don’t need to, because I have already judged it by its cover for you.

December 20th, 2008
Categories: A.D.D. . Author: trlrtrash13 (My Info) . Comments: No Comments

Click The Pic To Buy

Perhaps you have some furniture you need to get off your hands. Well this book will set you on the right course to getting rid of it without winding up in federal custody. Learn all the tricks of the seasoned pros before you try to unload your newly vacated Senate seat.

This book will teach you how to check your phones for wire taps. It will even teach you how to do a background check on yourself to ensure that you are not under federal investigation before you get to wheeling and dealing. It will also give you handy code phrases to use to avoid raising suspicion in the event your calls are overheard.

You will also find a list of handy phone numbers to help you find the right buyer, including Rahm Emanuel’s home number, and Jesse Jackson Jr’s cell phone number. You will also get a list of offshore banks where you can deposit the money from the sale to avoid those pesky laundering fees.

If you have ever tried to sell a used Senate Seat without this book, chances are you know how hard that can be. That’s why this book is a bargain at any price. But now through Christmas, you can get half off by entering the coupon code BLAGOJEVICH when you make your purchase. But wait! Buy now and they will also give you a free copy of their other furniture sales bestseller, “How To Unload A Used Pulpit” by the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright.

December 13th, 2008
Categories: A.D.D. . Author: trlrtrash13 (My Info) . Comments: 1 Comment

Do any of you remember the rolling blackouts in California under their former Governer Gray Davis? The rolling blackouts and brownouts became such a huge issue that they earned him the nickname Gray “Grayout” Davis and lead to his recall. Well, interestingly enough, Barack Obama has named Davis’s energy adviser, Nancy Sutley, to lead the White House Council on Environmental Policy.

Blagojevich, Emanuel, Sutley.

Why would one place a person with such a devastatingly horrible record on energy policy into a position of authority on the environment? When it was her job to worry about energy, her state couldn’t even keep the lights on, and now her job is going to place her in charge of protecting the environment from the energy companies? This woman has already shown a disastrous lack of understanding in the field of energy. Perhaps I should borrow from the leftist attacks on Sarah Palin and say that this womans only apparent qualification for the job is that she is a lesbian. Not fair, true, but neither was the leftist claim that Palin’s only qualification was that she hadn’t had an abortion. While she may not have had a huge amount of experience, she at least had not shown utter incompetence.

This is, however, the least of Obama’s worries right now. With reports swirling that his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had several conversations with Governor Blagojevich and is most likely on the FBI tapes, Obama’s staffers have seemed to go into hiding.  Jesse Jackson Jr now appears to have personally been involved in this process as well, and he was the co chairman of Obama’s Presidential Campaign.

I guess this is the change we were hearing so much about. It is tradition amongst former Presidents to at least get into office before their corrupt past is exposed. It might be interesting to hear what Tony Rezco has to say about this. His sentencing is coming up soon, and he may want to get a sweet deal. Yea, kind of like the one he got Obama on that house of his.

December 12th, 2008
Categories: Politics . Author: trlrtrash13 (My Info) . Comments: No Comments

Happy Thursday, world. I waited anxiously this morning to be sure the Sun would indeed rise. It did, and in so doing it relieved the last of my fears that still remained from Wednesday. I’m sure in time life will return to normal, but as for now we are left to deal with the after effects of “A Day Without A Gay”.

Gay Protesters

Wednesday certainly did not go off without a hitch. Nowhere did the effects of the Call In Gay effort strike harder than in San Francisco. Literal tens of people woke up and grabbed the phone to inform their boss they were too gay to work. I actually was able to speak with one such gay on the record. He said he called in and his boss begged him to work to which he replied “Sthorry, girlfriend! Thith chick ish goin sthopping! Sthnap!”

If your day went anything like mine, you found it impossible to get anything done without a gay. I took special note of all the things I was unable to do in the face of the gay strike. The list goes as follows.

Wow, I’m glad that is over. I can personally guarantee this. Never again will I take for granted how much easier gays make my life. You go, girlfriends!

December 11th, 2008
Categories: A.D.D. . Author: trlrtrash13 (My Info) . Comments: No Comments

On Sunday David Axelrod, Senior Adviser to Obama had the following to say about Barack’s involvement in the selection process to fill Obama’s vacated Senate seat. “I know he’s talked to the governor, and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced.” On Tuesday, Obama had the following to say on the same subject. “I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening,”. So of course, later on Tuesday Axelrod had to change his tune to the following. “They did not then or at any time discuss the subject,”.

Obama with Blagojevich

So where does all this action leave good old Blago? Well, if you have been paying any attention to Obama over the past two years, you probably already know. When the Rev. Wright embarrassed Obama, he was forced to resign. When William Ayers became a bit too much for Obama, he had to delay the release of his book. When Aunt Zetuni was discovered to be an illegal, Obama was ready to let her be deported. Sorry, Rod. You’re no exception. You may now assume your place under the Obama bus beside them.Today, Obama called on the Governor to step down.

Now at first glance, this request might seem like the logical thing to do. But let’s consider this for a second. Sure, there is the matter of a few tapes that are pretty incriminating. And yes, this may eventually lead to his being ineligible to serve. But may I remind you, he is innocent until proven guilty? Why should he step down until the process has run its course? Wouldn’t that disenfranchise the people from Illinois who voter for him?

Ok, seriously folks. Obviously it is not a bad idea for the Governor to step down. And certainly at this point, we do not want him choosing the next occupant of that seat. But that is the established process. And the Obama legal team has fought several suits that wished to stay the elections until his eligibility could be established. Isn’t this the last guy who should be asking someone else to go above what the law requires?

Back to Axelrod, notice that on Sunday he not only knew that the two had spoken, but was indeed aware of the particulars of the conversation? He after all stated that they had discussed “a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced.” Well, if many have surfaced, that means not all of the names discussed had. And if he knew that not all of them had, then he knew of other names that were discussed, or he had at the very least been told that there were more names than what had surfaced.

So, if that conversation never happened, than what is Axelrod remembering anyway? Interestingly enough, Obama refused to comment on weather anyone on his team was in direct contact with the Governor on this one.

December 10th, 2008
Categories: News . Author: trlrtrash13 (My Info) . Comments: No Comments

As man debates the theories of evolution and creation, things can get a bit intense. Fueling the fire of passion in the discussions is the misconception that one theory is based completely on scientific fact, and the other is based on faith alone. In reality, science requires and experiment to be both observable and re-creatable. The beginning of all that we see is neither. I would, however, like to weigh in with my opinion on this topic. I write this not to be controversial, but rather in hopes that this might help some have a better way of looking at things. I welcome all to post your views, either on my thoughts or your own theories, in the comments.

The Beginning

For this article,I will reference an evolutionary timeline, and the first chapter of Genesis.

Genesis 1

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Here we see the beginnings of all things as being without shape and empty. All was darkness in the universe. There was no light and no shape. Similarly, in the Big Bang theory, all of the existing energy and matter was condensed into one point in space. This and energy then collapsed in upon itself, then exploding outward and accelerating all matter away from it’s central point. This event did not form stars and planets, but rather it laid the foundations for the Universe. Hence, at this point, there was no shape and form.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The first day of creation there was the creation of light. Not the Sun, mind you. That would come further down the line. So what is this light, and what process ruled that it be seperated from darkness? Creation would view this event as the word of God. Science would accept this as a law of physics. Either way, by both accounts the initial act is the creation of light by either the mouth of God or the massive energy of the big Bang.

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Here in the Biblical account we see a dividing of the waters. There is the creation of a firmament that separated the water above the earth from the waters on the surface of the earth. The evolutionary tale tells much the same story.

In the Biblical account we have a firmament, called an Ozone layer today. Both events allow for a previously unknown phenomenon. It allows ultraviolet light to photo dissociate the water in the atmosphere. The heavier oxygen atoms would then be trapped into the ozone layer, while the lighter hydrogen molecules could push through and escape into space. By both accounts, this event allows for a separation of the waters below and the waters above.

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

In this act of creation, God separates the water from dry land, causing the formation of the oceans. This newly exposed dry land then brings forth grass and other plant life.

Now, this table does not address the formation of plant life, but it is however in this same period where the oceansare formed, and plant life begins to evolve.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Now, here is a key difference between the two theories, and the cause of much of the dissension. It is at this point that I will no longer use the references, because we all know what happens from here. From the Bible, sea life then land animals then man. Evolution tells the same tale. So it is on this great difference that I wish to focus.

Science tells us that sunlight is necessary for any life to begin. The Bible, the plant life appears before the Sun. Another problem with the Biblical account is the earlier reference to days. To specify the given meaning of the word, the phrase “the evening and the morning” is used with each day to specify a 24 hour period.

The problem with that theory occurs when one considers that God deemed that the Sun would be used to tell time. It would “divide the day from the night” and would be for “signs and seasons, days and years”. So if there was no known measurement of time and no standard to mark a day or a night prior to this, then can the 24 hour standard really be used? And if the Sun doesn’t show up until the fourth day, what was that original light?

While evolutionists may be happy to see this potential pitfall for creation, be advised that the evolutionary theory contains a similar flaw. It places plant life on the planet long before the insects that are necessary to cross pollinate that life. Hence, by our current understanding of physics, neither process is without error. At this point, creation must allow for the miracles of God. Evolution looks for better knowledge and understanding.

Here is where I weigh in on the issue. I am married to neither theory, nor do I feel the two are mutually exclusive. What if that initial light was the Big Bang? Weather one believes it to be the result of the laws of physics or the voice of a super natural being, it could still be so. And as all matter began to accelerate away, could the days of creation not be the markings of the change of each era in the process? And as the ozone layer forms, an atmosphere is born, and water pools into oceans, and techtonic plates shift raising mountains, and plants begin to grow, and ocean life is born, and algae moves on land and so on… and the evening and the morning is the rise and fall of each era.

Could not the tale of creation be the original recounting of the big bang, and the process of evolution? The final flaw is introduced here. Man. In the Biblical account he was formed from the dust of the ground, not an evolutionary process. But was not everything formed from this cosmic dust that propelled away from this great beginning? Could this not be a symbolic recognition to the coming of age of a new form of intelligence? Either theory could allow for such an occurrence. The symbolic use of the word day allows for another symbolic usage here. By either account, this new formation is the first being with the ability to understand. To understand either the God that dictated creation, or the physical laws that dictated evolution.

It is my belief that the furthest gap between the creationist and the evolutionist could be bridged here. It is no more noble nor less logical to associate this creating force as a set of laws than it is to prescribe them to the mind of an intelligent being. One thing is for sure. There is an intelligence here. The danger we risk is to attempt to “humanize” this intelligence. While I sit here in judgment of either of these theories, both are beyond my ability to fully grasp. I dare say most who read this would agree personally with this assessment.

To attempt to demand an intelligent being based on what we see around us is as foolish as to completely rule him out based on our observation of where we are today on this cosmic time line. Were conditions made perfect for our arrival, or was our arrival based on the natural process of the perfection of the environment? A lizard kept in an aquarium will grow to the perfect size for his environment than stop. Where he of a level of intelligence to look around him and assess his situation, I am sure that he would marvel as to the perfection of it all. “This aquarium is the perfect size for me. Certainly I was placed here by an intelligence that new exactly what size of an environment that I would need. It is perfectly designed just for me.” Yet a higher intelligence knows that his size was indeed determined by the conditions of his environment.

As one that is unable to grasp the great complexities of this environment in which I find myself, I have a difficult time stating deffinitavely one way or the other. Were conditions made perfect for my arrival, or was my arrival based on the conditions that were here? I canot answer that for myself. I have a belief that I consider to be no more nor less valid than that of anyone else. What I can say is this. I want to know. And as I study and try to learn all that I can, there are times that I enjoy sitting back and reflecting on what I consider to be one of the greatest thoughts of all. Am I exploring the mysteries of physics, or am I desperately hoping for that glimpse into the mind of God?

December 9th, 2008
Categories: A.D.D. . Author: trlrtrash13 (My Info) . Comments: 1 Comment

“It’s a bleeping valuable thing — thing. You just don’t give it away for nothing,” These are the words of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich in regards to the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama. Many investigators, already cynical from years of dealing with the rampant crime that serves as an ever present cancer in Illinois politics, claimed that even they were shocked by this deal. “I’ve got this thing, and it’s bleeping golden. And I’m just not giving it up for bleeping nothing. I’m not going to do it, and I can always use it; I can parachute me there,” Blagojevich was recorded saying.

Governor Rob Blagojevich taken into Federal custody.

The arrest was made this morning to stop what the U.S. Attorneys office called a “a political corruption crime spree”. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald made it clear that his office was making no allegations that Obama was aware of the scheme. Obama’s reaction falls along the lines of another “That’s not the Blagojevich that I knew”. It further breaks down into another Obama lie. “I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening,” Barack said.

The problem with this quote is the taped conversations. While they imply that Obama was unwilling to wheel and deal, they do show that he was aware of what was going on. According to the complaint, Blagojevich offered to appoint a top Obama adviser only if Obama would in turn name Blagojevich secretary of health and human services. Upon being turned down by Obama, he reportedly told his Chief of Staff “but ‘they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation, ____ them.”

This recorded conversation would certainly imply that there were conversations between Blagojevich and Obama’s Administration on the matter. Barack has come out repeatedly stating that he is the one that makes all final decisions. While it is possible that this matter was handled at a lower level of his admin, these statements would certainly be contradictory.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of all of this is that Blagojevich, released on his own recognisance, can still by law appoint Obama’s successor. No official word yet on whom that may be.

December 9th, 2008
Categories: News . Author: trlrtrash13 (My Info) . Comments: No Comments

There seems to be a touch of the gay going around. In case you happen to come down with it, be sure to call in sick to work so you don’t pass it on to your co workers. Most likely, you will be feeling perfectly fine when you go to bed Tuesday night. Wednesday morning? Not so much. You probably won’t realize it immediately. Something may feel a bit amiss, but you won’t initially be able to put your finger on it. You may feel a bit odd when your alarm goes off and you look at the time and mutter “as if” and extend your limp wrist out towards the snooze button. But about the time you begin lamenting the fact that your socks clash with your underwear, you will wake up to the shocking reality. You caught the gay that’s been going around.

Gays urged to "Call In Gay".

Ok, seriously. You aren’t going to wake up gay. Homosexuals, however, are being urged to “call in gay” on Wednesday to show how much the country relies on them. So, I’m guessing if you were planning to get a haircut or pick up a flower arrangement for the wife, you may want to do that on Tuesday.

Now, before I start getting a bunch of comments about how insensitive this article is, let me explain. What do you suppose would happen if straight people organized a “call in straight” day? If you’re guessing we would grind the economy to a halt for 24 hours… you’re dead wrong. Why? Because straight people just happen to be straight. We do not have straight pride parades. There is no straight pride flag. I have never received a call from a fellow straight asking if I would like to go to a straight bar this weekend. And I have never seen an ad campaign for straight day at Disney Land. Why? Because nobody cares.

That having been said, let me fill you in on what this campaign will accomplish.

1. It will show you’re irrelevance to anyone who takes time out of their busy schedule to acknowledge that the homosexuals didn’t come to work today, and the Nation still ran smoothly.
2. It will make a further mockery of any strand of dignity your movement may have had left following the publicly orchestrated antics protesting the prop 8 passage.
3. It may likely lead to some of the offenders losing their jobs, forcing the community to find something even dumber than this to do to protest that.
4. It will lead to further erosion of any sympathy you had in the straight community.

And yes, I am aware that the vast majority of the gay community does not take part in these ridiculous events. I am furthermore aware that the fallout from their ridiculous actions lands directly on that part of the community as well. It is sad that the average homosexual has to suffer for these nimrods, but it is a fact of life. When you identify yourself as a group, you will be judged by the words and actions of the most vocal from said group. Are you getting the hint here? Perhaps that’s why straight people aren’t organized as a group.

As I stated on my show, priop to the post prop 8 antics, I supported full rights gay marriage. After those antics? Yea, right. There is no discrimination in the current system, so let it stand. Let it stand until the gay community grows to the intellectual level of a semi competant five year old. Until then, happy “Call In Gay Day”.

December 8th, 2008
Categories: A.D.D. . Author: trlrtrash13 (My Info) . Comments: 1 Comment

The Supreme Court decided today, without comment, not to hear the case of Leo Donofrio which questioned Obama’s eligibility to be President. This came as a bit of a surprise to me. Not the decision not to hear the case, but rather the decision not to comment. While leftists are celebrating the decision, this is by and large based on the fact that they are generally unaware of the workings of the court.

Supreme Court Justices make decision without comment.

This is actually bad news for the left. Well, let me rephrase that. This is the decision that I believe ObamaNation was least wanting to hear. As none of these cases stand a very good chance, no news is going to be particularly bad for them. As a rule, when the Court dismisses a case without comment, it means that they agree with the findings of the lower Court. This means that it is the end of the road for this case, and any such cases where the lower Courts found similarly. The Supreme Court has agreed that an individual citizen does not have standing in such a case, because he was not harmed any greater by any potential injustice than was any other citizen.

This leaves open to discussion the suit filed by Alan Keyes. As a fellow Candidate, he clearly has standing based on the fact that his chances of winning in California would have been much greater were Obama, the candidate who won the State, not on the ballot. While I believe that it is highly unlikely that this case will succeed, this decision appears to leave the high court open to hearing that case.

Of interest in this case is an article on CBS News called “Obama Derangement Syndrome”. This article shows the typical ignorance of the left in this matter. It is laughable that the intention of the author, David Horowitz, is to paint the right as being the ones deranged in this matter. This first quote from the article shows the derangement to be lying far more in the camp of the left.

The birth-certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil.

So to uphold the Constitution is to “disenfranchise” 64 million voters? On what galaxy does this line of reasoning hold up? Sorry, David, but to shred the Constitution disenfranchises all Americans. That may not fit into your agenda here, but it makes much more sense than your proposal.

Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to five Supreme Court Justices (since no one is delusional enough to think that the four liberal justices are going to take the presidency away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?

Is not ours a society founded on the rule of law? Is not this movement asking that the rule of law be upheld? And why would one expect Phillip Berg, a life long Democrat who has served in the State Party, ran for State office for that party, and worked for the Campaign of a Candidate of that party, be expected to act as a Conservative? But more interestingly here, notice the implications of the statement of the author on the standing of the “four liberal justices”? For one to think their concern for the Constitution would outweigh their love of party and Obama would classify you as “delusional” in the eyes of David Horowitz.

Sadly, he is right here. I am not delusional enough to think that anything more than a small handful of Obama supporters have any concern whatsoever with upholding a law that would in anyway stand in the way of Obama. To consider the vast majority of Obama supporters to be educated on the law, let alone concerened with the rule of it would be equally as delusional. Peggy Joseph is getting her gas and mortgage paid, Constitution be damned. And to Horowitz and others who are informed of the law, to uphold it for the sake of 300 million would disenfranchise 64 million, and we can’t have that now can we?

It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and - by the way - it’s Constitution.

Well, dear sir. While I would agree that respect for the results of an election is important, you seriously need to re-think that statement. To respect the results of an election, one has to respect the entire process of the election. And to fool yourself into thinking that blasting away at those who are using the Constitutional process to attempt to verify the Constitutionality of this election is somehow defending the Constitution is also delusional.

Consider this. There are two sides to every coin. While Horowitz attacks these individuals bringing the suits, all that they are doing is bringing closure. While their intention may be to derail Obama, the end result may be to certify his legitimacy with many of us mainstream Conservatives who have seen Obama’s response to this and now have thrown up the question marks ourselves. Instead of coughing up the dough for a birth certificate, Obama had his records sealed and hired three legal teams to fight these suits. I ask you, which path is easier and more conclusive? To produce the doccumentation, or to have these long drawn out court battles. It is the response of Obama, not the suits that have been filed, that has caused me to question his legal standing to hold this office. If the Supreme Court decides to hear one of these cases, and determines that he is qualified, this will settle the question for me and mose mainstreamers. And since Obama clearly will not take the easy road on this and settle the question once and for all, this is clearly the only resolution in sight. So once again I ask t whom belongs the blame for this devisive case? Is it the fault of those who wish to see the law upheld, or the fault of he who claims to have evidence he refuses to produce? Evidence that would settle this case once and for all. Once again, Obama needs to put up, or the pundits need to shut up until the Court can do its job… a job that is only necessary because of Obama’s refusal to put up.

December 8th, 2008
Categories: News . Author: trlrtrash13 (My Info) . Comments: No Comments