Haven’t heard much about Justina Pelletier, a young girl I had previously written about who was for all intents and purposes, kidnapped by the Boston Children’s Hospital with the legal authority and weaponry of the State of Massachusetts. Her crime? Being a sick young girl whose parents had opted to follow the medical advice of their team of doctors from Tufts Hospital over the well-connected authority of BCH. After a year of state sponsored medical experiments, she finally returned home to Connecticut, and Google searches reveal nothing about her since then. The state it seems, is no longer concerned that her parents are abusing her medically. More likely, they decided they could no longer dance their macabre dance of tyranny in the public eye. Not that they could be wrong. No, it will always be presumed by weight of the legal records that the state had the moral authority to steal this child from parents who were unfit to decide what was in the best interest of their child, and it was the parents who should forever be ashamed of the year long near-death imprisonment of their daughter at the Boston Children’s Hospital and Penitentiary.

Tell her to jump? Or give her a push?

Tell her to jump? Or give her a push?

Maryland too has had to correct parents gone astray. Child Protective Services in Silver Spring rescued the ten and six year-old children of Danielle and Alexander Meitiv after their children were found alone in a Silver Spring park earlier this month. The Meitivs are “free-range” parents; a ridiculous term that, one assumes, is to delineate them from the “helicopter” variety of parents so prevalent today. (Disclaimer; I’ve logged a few hours in my own “Kid-Sikorsky”. Mine may have felt that they were independent and on their own; not so much. Stealth dad as it were…)

Again, the state decided that instead of picking the kids up, they’d just hold on to them for a while. The kids had promised to be home by six; they were two blocks from home when the police picked them up and held them for over two hours before sending them to Child Protective Service ten miles away. They finally released the kids to their parents at ten-thirty, four hours later than the kids had intended to be home and ten miles farther away then the two blocks they could have covered in less than fifteen minutes. Probably less than five minutes if the police had just brought them home.

Who in their right mind let’s their kids wander alone these days, especially kids that young? Makes me think of my school days though; We lived within, just within, the minimum distance that would have allowed us to ride the school bus and we walked or rode our bikes to school every day. State law, you see. We were state-sponsored “free-range kids” before it was cool. By law. But of course, back then, we didn’t have all these nut-jobs waiting in the bushes or lurking in some dark, broken-down shanty in the neighborhood the way we do now. Oops, my mistake. Of course we did. And we have them now only because we’re not allowed to restrict them from “adjusting” back into society or lock them up forever; and heaven forbid we be allowed to know which houses they may be occupying on the state enforced “free-range” walk to school. No, I don’t allow my kids that kind of freedom, whether they think I do or not. And it’s a good thing too or they’d be cooling their little heels in the back of some squad car or locked away in some comfy little state-sponsored juvi-hall, ala Justina Pelletier, victims of parents so horrible that the state just has to step in. Nothing worse for a child than his parents.

I’m usually all about parent’s rights, but still ready to admit to and scream about the idiots among us who shouldn’t be allowed to raise a potato plant let alone a child. I’m pretty damned consistent about it too. The “free-range” idiots are placing their kids at risk; one I wouldn’t take. But we’ve assigned guilt to them for things that might happen; might happen because we’ve allowed society and our neighborhoods to devolve into areas where our children can no longer roam alone. It pisses us off that these boneheads let their kids walk alone and so we attack them; it’s easier than fixing the problem we should address. But the state knows best. We can’t be too inhumane about the cretins that make our streets dangerous; instead, let’s lock up the kids that can’t follow the rules. Parents just can’t be left alone to decide. Or can they?

Okay I’ll bite. Why then do we celebrate the courage it takes for a parent to decide they want to send their child down the path of gender reassignment at the ripe old age of three? Or Four? Apparently, little Jacob, formerly a little girl named Mia informed her parents that she wanted to take the “free-range” walk down transgender lane as young as age two and hey, Boston is enamored with their strength and courage. This is no mere tomboy phase we’re assured; it’s the real thing. The four year-old told us so. She’s only two years away from getting busted for walking alone to the park, but we’ll set her on the path to self-mutilation and years of therapy, quite content in the knowledge that the parents are doing the right thing for their child. This time; on this issue.

Let the hate and derision begin. I’m bigoted. I’m evil. I’m hateful, spiteful, and probably a whole of bunch other things I’m sure I’ll shortly be made aware of. And let’s get the other stuff out of the way as well. No, I don’t know what they’re going through. No, I don’t hate people who are different. It just seems that we’ll bend ourselves into all sorts of contortions for the malady-du-jour, and no I’m not making light of this as much as it pisses me off.

We indulge these illnesses, without even letting this child approach an age where she can be exposed to others around her as she starts to mature naturally. We make no assumption that she may grow out of this or may develop a mechanism to cope, never truly supporting her in the body that she is in, fully exploiting and amplifying her illness, setting it in stone in her psyche as we wait for the opportunity to permanently disfigure her body to match? Is this not in fact, cruel? Of course, we’ll be told that we’re cruel to let her suffer, how horrible it will be to make her wait until she gets old enough to rationally make this monumental, permanent change on her own. If she felt her left hand didn’t belong to her, really felt that way, would we also encourage her to remove the right? If she were anorexic, would we feel it was cruel to help her see her body in reality, to help her accept and understand the fact that her mind is broken and the problem is not in her weight? Or would we acquiesce, tell her yes, we agree, please eat less, you’ll feel much better about yourself dear. We don’t encourage any other of these types of illnesses; we don’t pat ourselves on the back for our courage to indulge them. Why this one? Do we really believe that we’re doing the right thing when we have what in reality, is a very basic and rudimentary understanding of the complexity of the mind, let alone the brain itself? Do we really believe this is the cure, and believe it so strongly that we’ll do anything we can to make the change easier, faster, and more “natural?” Are we really so worried about her being too “different” to be accepted, by others as well as herself, that we’d make her infinitely more unique? Or is that the goal? If she told us she really believed she was a bird, would we take her to the rooftop and toss her off, hoping that in some way she’d eventually be able to fly?

Go ahead, throw the darts, but I can’t wrap my head around this one. I would suffer along side of my child, encouraging her and helping her to reach the age of maturity, helping her to understand that she can be whoever she wants to be; the girl she wants to be. But I would never encourage her to live this confusion, to give up fighting against it until she was old enough to rationally, competently make this decision on her own. And until she spends any time exploring what it means to be a girl, to be the body nature developed her to be, to have her first crush, to watch other boys develop and mature around her, then these parents are just allowing her to walk to a distant park, all alone and unprepared for either the journey or the destination.

At the end of this walk, the cops can’t bring you back home.


It usually starts out small, unnoticed; some obscure study or paper, published by a noted (or notorious) academic, supported by the learned bastions of academia like Cambridge or Essex University. Left unnoticed and unchallenged, it soon becomes the basis for further development and support, reaching far beyond the numbers, statistics or density within the population studied to justify a certain behavior or particular point of view. It slowly finds its way into mainstream thinking, reviled at first, but soon determined to be “normal” or “acceptable” because, hey, a study at a major university said so. Who knows, after a few years, it might just start reaching the point of adding to our diversity, demanding tolerance and the enforced, militant acceptance on the larger population. How soon before it becomes settled science that demands deniers be branded as hate mongers or idiots? Call me an idiot; there are some things I will never accept. No, I’ll never tolerate the belief that the “majority of men are probably paedophiles and hebephiles” and that “paedophilic interest is normal and natural in human males”. Nope. Not ever.

Two peas in a very perverted pod...

Plummer and O’Carrol: Two peas in a very perverted pod…

Last July at a conference at the University of Cambridge, the lead presentation opened the conference by stating, “Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” and “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.” This love-fest of perverted thought brought together all manner of experts on the subject of the conference, which was about the classification of sexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The battle is over the classification, or lack of one, to encompass Hebephilia, the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically eleven to fourteen-year-olds, which is different from Pedophilia, the sexual preference for pre-pubescents.

The argument centers around the legality of the terms used by courts and law enforcement. With puberty starting younger in the last several decades, the definition of Pedophila may not encompass a large number of children who were pubertal; victims who were not covered by the term Pedophile because of their early puberty. The American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the DSM, sought to classify Hebephilia as a disorder, concerned that the lack of clarification was “tantamount to stating that the APA’s official position is that the sexual preference for early pubertal children is normal”. The proposal was defeated. Another victory for yet another tiny segment of the population who see their predilections as completely normal and looking for the acceptance of the larger population and quite possibly, eventually laws and further studies to support that claim. Settled science as it were.

The attacks on the APA were telling, if not disgusting. Professor Ray Blanchard who headed the APA working group on the subject, was criticized by another learned perv, Professor Patrick Singy of Union College of New York. Professor Singy is concerned that convicted sex offenders might be detained as “mentally ill” and that the diagnosis of Hebephilia would be abused to keep sex offenders incarcerated after their sentence under the US “sexually violent predator” laws. Oh shame on us for protecting the weakest among our society. After all, as Professor Philip Tromovitch from Doshisha University of Japan noted, the “majority of men are probably paedophiles and hebephiles” and that “paedophilic interest is normal and natural in human males”. Maybe in the circles he travels; maybe it’s something in the water at these universities.

A large number of those at the conference are connected to the Pedophile Information Exchange, a group founded to legalize sex with children. Many of the attendees are quite sympathetic to the plight of the Pedophile and the Hebephile, looking for academia to help them convince us all that we need to tolerate and accept their behavior. Apparently, one attendee named Tom O’Carrol who is not only a multiple child convicted sex offender but was once the head of the Pedophile Information Exchange, was positively giddy about the whole conference. He blogged about how “wonderful” the conference was and how “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!” Describing a wonderful evening after the conference where he had drinks with the esteemed Professor Tromovitch, O’Carrol stated, “The conversation flowed most agreeably, along with the drinks and the beautiful River Cam.” Yes, I’ll just bet the evening was just ducky; I don’t really want to think about the conversation though, thank you.

I’m not sure why we decided, or even when we decided, that we’d start to sacrifice the greater good for the miscreant few. My sympathy for anyone who considers themselves ill quickly evaporates when it includes the predation of the innocent. My sympathy turns to revulsion, very short of anger when they no longer consider themselves ill but rather a small point on the ever sliding scale of “normal”, but normal nonetheless. An outlier, but just as normal as you and I. The only thing they crave more than acceptance is the young, innocent bodies on which they prey.

If we can’t agree that this is abnormal, that this is repulsive and that this is a sickness, we can agree on nothing. How long before academia instructs us that the science is settled?

It already is for me.

 

 


I’m not a doctor or a psychologist. I’m not a superior court judge either. I don’t think one needs an advanced degree however, to assume that forcible anal rape on a toddler might just inflict some level of physical or emotional pain and permanent scarring on such an innocent, helpless victim. You might however, if you leaned that way, be inclined to be concerned for the welfare of the hideous creature who could hold his hand over the mouth of his tiny victim while he removed her panties to penetrate her. If in fact you were so inclined to lean that way, and you were in fact a superior court judge, you’d be Orange County Superior Court Judge M. Marc Kelly; Superior Court Judge for how long remains to be seen.

Pervert with a gavel?

Pervert with a gavel?

Pity poor Kevin Jonas Rojano-Nieto; he was minding his own business, playing video games in his garage when the sexually attractive toddler, a relative of his, wandered in. Unable to thwart the power of her overwhelming sexuality, ol’ KJ became instantly aroused. According to Judge Kelly, “Mr. Rojano did not seek out or stalk (the victim). He was playing video games and she wandered into the garage.  He inexplicably became sexually aroused but did not appear to consciously intend to harm (the victim) when he sexually assaulted her.”  Thank goodness for the judge, realizing the helpless situation the twenty year-old Rojano found himself in. Sounds like she was asking for it. Who could resist the power of the three-year old Lolita? Rojano just had to have her, had to clamp his hand down over her mouth when her mother appeared outside the locked garage door looking for her. Kelly assures us that “There was no violence or callous disregard for (the victim’s) well-being.”

Idiot. Rojano’s “callous disregard for the victims’ well-being” is every bit as obvious as the judge’s callous disregard for common decency, let alone common sense or basic humanity. The minimum sentence for such a crime is twenty-five years to life. Sensing that the punishment was too severe, obviously more “cruel and unusual” than the sodomy committed on a three year-old, Kelly reduced the sentence to only ten years. Kelly justified his actions saying, “In looking at the facts of Mr. Rojano’s case, the manner in which this offense was committed is not typical of a predatory, violent brutal sodomy of a child case.”  Hmm, sounds like the “it’s not really rape-rape” defense. You know, it’s not really sodomy, even though the child was probably whimpering in pain underneath the hand clamped down on her mouth as she suffered tissue injuries to her anus. Yup, not a typical violent, brutal sodomy of a child. As if that would make a damned bit of difference, you robed bastard.

Should this idiot continue to be on the bench? He’s every bit as dangerous to society as those who can’t control their urges around a three year-old relative. Think this might just be a one-time mistake, a poor use of judge’s discretion? Think again. In 2010, Kelly reduced the one-to-four year sentence of a man convicted of trying to solicit sex from multiple underage girls to only probation. Stephen Deck attempted to have sex with a thirteen year-old girl after he learned her parents were away for the evening. Deck targeted other thirteen-year-old girls online, even asking one for sex with her and her ten year-old sister. He wanted them to get naked in the kitchen so they could eat food off of each other’s bodies. He texted another underage girl, telling her he wanted to “eat her beautiful young c***” and “wanted to stuff daddy’s cock in his lil’ gurls pussy.” For this, Kelly sentenced Dreck to five years of probation, sexual addiction classes and a $200 fine. I’m surprised he included the friggin’ fine.

A man who can doubt that forcible anal rape of a toddler is anything but violent and is a “callous disregard for the victim’s well-being” has no place on the bench, let alone in any decent society anywhere in the world. Or above ground if you ask me. How this menace continued past 2010 is anyone’s guess. The outrage over his latest pedophilic support is beginning to swell; he may not survive this time, if people of any decency and common sense have anything to do with it. Members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors are calling for Kelly to step down and have indicated they would support a recall effort if he refuses. There is also a petition on change.org calling for him to step down.

Why would anyone expect this man, of all men, to do the right thing when he’s already shown he’s grossly incapable of such an act? This will need to go beyond asking and petitions. Get off your asses in California and recall this bastard before he sets another freak free among you. He has shown you what his inclinations are and they’re not in your best interest.

I’d say he has a callous disregard for the welfare of the citizens of Orange County.


There’s a cute little analogy running around the web about vaccines. A lot of my friends of the progressive bent have been posting and re-posting it, hoping to shame and embarrass their “anti-vaxxer” friends, another cute phrase designed to impugn anyone who disagrees with big government thinking; a common tactic on the left when their arguments are flawed and fly in the face of personal freedoms. The analogy goes something like this; you have the personal freedom to remove the brakes from your car, but you’re not that stupid are you? What idiot in his right mind would do such a thing and expose themselves and those around them from unnecessary risks. Friggin’ idiots would, that’s who. And you’re not an idiot are you? Sweet. How far should we take this analogy? Let’s see where it leads.

Anti-lock stupidity...

Anti-lock stupidity…

The last time I had my brakes fixed, I don’t recall Midas handing me a twenty page document to detail the possible side effect and dangers associated with new brakes. How many people one wonders, have died from complications due to having their rotors turned? Any people suffer a stroke? Anyone suffer a severe adverse reaction? Anyone develop any rare cancers from new brake pads? If new brakes are so safe, shouldn’t the government fully indemnify Midas the way they have the pharmaceutical companies? Why not? Maybe “Big Brake” needs the same congressional relationships enjoyed by “Big Pharma.”

So at the end of the day, what my friends are saying is that eventually, at the point of a gun, the government should pull up to your driveway with their Homeland Security tow truck and take your car by force. All for the benefit of the greater good, or at least “for the children.” Fascism always goes down a little easier when it’s “for the children.” What ever happened to all the other catch phrases that mattered to the left? “My auto-body, my choice” comes to mind. How about, “keep your government out of my garage?” After all, if someone identifies as “brakeless”, who are we to judge. Brakeless cars are cars too; they should be able to share the road with everyone else. Don’t want to damage my car’s self-esteem and all. Yeesh.

No. I’m not a “vax-denier” or whatever term of derision is currently in vogue. I grew up on military bases where immunization was a ritual. Couldn’t start the new school year without those shots. You got your pencils, your glue, construction paper and a whole week of pretty irritated shoulders. Hell, I even have the residual scars some of these wonderful advances in medicine left behind. Did my part, thank you. Of course, I never got to volunteer. And my parents weren’t given much of a choice. Big government put the brakes on us, as it were.

Fast forward to the birth of my two children. My wife and I never made any decision alone; we researched and questioned our pediatricians unmercifully. Luckily, we had doctors who were more concerned with the health of our children than the health of the government; or the pharmaceutical companies for that matter. We steer clear of the flu vaccine; my inoculated friends seem to get the flu more often than I do. And the school system was unrelenting in trying to jab our daughters full of Gardasil; luckily, our doctors weren’t too keen on the risks associated with the wonder drug of the day. But as they say in the media, “the science is settled”….

So now the push. Why now? My daughters, or anyone’s children who are unvaccinated, pose the same risk to you and your offspring as they did three months ago. Or three years ago. Question; if your vaccine is so effective, why the hell are you afraid of those who don’t get it? I thought you’re rendered immune? Is your miracle poisonous cocktail effective or not? Can’t say for sure can you? So you blindly, willingly, inject yourself with who knows what and you still roll the dice that it’s effective, playing the odds on only one side. You poo-poo the risks associated with the side effects but are willing to take the risk that you’ve been injected with a chemical cocktail that may be no more effective than chicken soup. But at least your car has brakes. Government brakes. Maybe it’s not a car; maybe it’s a cattle truck.

Now we see the uptick in cases of measles; where does this come from? How many unvaccinated children just miraculously, spontaneously developed measles? Something they ate? Something they caught from the cat? No, more likely the administration knowingly subjects you “brakers” and your vaccinated kids to children from third world origins, places where, unlike the USA, these diseases have not been eradicated. If little “jimmy or Suzie trust-fund liberal” goes to school in a place like, oh, Lynn Mass, he’s sitting at a desk next to a child(?) whose age we aren’t even allowed by law to inquire about. What the hell makes you think we know their medical history? But this flood continues unabated, the real topic we should be discussing, while we debate whether or not Joe citizen has brakes on his car. Hear that sound? That’s the beeping noise of the truck backing up in your driveway, ready to remove your “car” from your responsibility. You’re too stupid to own a car; cars belong to everyone. It takes a village to raise a car. As it were.

So, for all of you “brakers” out there; you continue to give this administration cover. They flood your communities with diseases that used to be a distant memory and convince you that the only way to address the problem is to surrender more of your personal freedoms, give into the fear that it’s your neighbors; people you have known and trusted for years, that are the problem. If only there was a law that could be used to compel these miscreants to bare the arms and buttocks of their children for government approved inoculation and indoctrination, you’ll fee safe. Safe and smug I might add.

It’s not about brakes. Soon, it’ll be where you can park your car. How many cars you can have; what type of car you can have. Or, whether you can have a car or not. And as you continue to move down this path, remember, you are pushing for a world where they can, at the point of a gun, come and take your car. It’s for the children you know; keep feeding into the hysteria that they manufacture to convince you that they are the only solution to the problems that they create.

No problem; just keep pumping those brakes…..


I refuse to watch the video. I usually like to see things for myself, although one needs to be careful in today’s world of digitally altered propaganda. However, the ISIS video of the immolation of their captured Jordanian pilot should probably be viewed by every person on the planet. If one can get beyond the horrific suffering of Moaz al-Kasasbeh, you can hear the expressions of glee and triumph in the voices of the soldiers of Allah in the background. Of course, they aren’t doing this in the name of Islam. Unless that is, you ask them their motivation. It doesn’t really matter to ISIS how you refer to them. Labels and the fear of offending someone (or being offended) are concerns that only paralyze the west. Those who follow a religion that celebrates death and martyrdom over the sanctity of life are looking for greater rewards than an apology for being photographed naked at Gitmo. While we tie our hands over the strategy we should pursue to defend civilization, they tie the hands of women and children before forcibly removing their heads from their bodies. Shooting these barbarians from a distance gets one labeled a “coward.” Such is the complicity of the progressive left of the world.

3u1rkvg

The greatest victory of the progressive left in its war on western values to date is probably best remembered in the image of the last chopper taking off from the rooftops in Saigon. A stark statement to be sure, but no less true. The war was lost at home, lost in the classrooms of major centers of “learning,” where young minds were taught the moral relativism that elevates the left’s romantic affection for communism and socialism as a more enlightened concept than the individual freedoms espoused by western society. Once Saigon fell, the wonders of communism gave us the killing fields of Cambodia where the communist regime murdered almost two million of its own people. Back then, we were racist as well, seeking only to conquer and kill “the yellow man,” according to Springsteen.

Fast forward to 2015 and the left is still on its march to destroy the foundations of the western world in the name of “equality,” “justice,” “diversity,” whatever. The battle still rages on campuses everywhere, teaching our best and brightest future leaders of the world that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” The cultural elites of the left will hashtag their asses off to show solidarity for one day, exclaiming “Je suis Charlie,” then protesting against Israel the next, chanting “Allahu Akbar” in the faces of Jewish students and decorating their frat houses with swastikas. In a macabre twist of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” the left does its best to make sure that we do not identify the political ideology posing as a religion, lest we insult the “moderate majority” of Muslims. Interesting phrase that; moderate Muslim. Of course, we are told that we can’t paint the whole Muslim world with the actions of a few. How many is a few? What is the definition of a moderate Muslim? If there are close to two billion Muslims in the world and the radical extreme makes up only a tiny portion of that number, one would have to logically assume that radical Islam would not be an issue at all. Maybe we can’t paint them all with a broad brush, but the circle of people who surrounded the gay man executed by ISIS this week seemed extreme. Or were they moderate? Are there really that many people who would come out to the town square to throw moderate stones at a man just because he was gay? Maybe if their moderate beliefs told them to. Someone supports the radicals in their midst; funds them, feeds them, occupies the rug next to them, hides them. Not sure but from where I stand, it looks like radical Muslims will kill you in an effort to impose their beliefs on the world. Moderates will stand back to watch as radicals kill you to impose their beliefs on the world. Same goal, different tactic?

Once this plague has been released into the wild, does the left hope to contain it? Either they are too stupid to realize the danger, or they too are using the twisted ideology for their own end game. Who visited the State Department recently? It wasn’t Netanyahu. No, the white house is actively trying to destroy his re-election bid in Israel. It wasn’t Egypt’s al-Sisi, the man who was in the forefront of battling the Muslim Brotherhood on the streets of his own country. No, it was the very same Muslim Brotherhood that the State Department cozied up to, then lying about the meeting to the press. The administration is working with the Brotherhood to oppose al-Sisi. Make of that what you will.

No one wants war. Clarification; no one who values life wants war. Those who were bred into an ideology that celebrates suicide and the death of anyone who does not follow that same orthodoxy love war. They are instructed to do so. They hide their weapons in hospitals, mosques and school yards, watching as the west flails about, tearing our hair out over collateral damage. They bring their warfare into the heart of their own cities, killing anyone, Muslim and non-Muslim who doesn’t further the end cause, their world caliphate. This will not end with drones. You can’t target them from miles away with smart bombs. Like the cockroaches they are, they scurry back into the population of moderates, people who won’t stop feeding them, people who won’t stop funding them, people who won’t point them out, people who won’t kill them in their midst. What’s worse is they are using the same tactics in the west, beheading people in Oklahoma, bombing delis in Paris. And all we have are leaders who caution us not to defame the religion. Leaders who for some reason cannot bring themselves to utter Islam and terrorist in the same sentence. The same collectivist mindset and tactics that brought us the fall of Saigon and all the other massacres associated with socialism and communism in the twentieth century are now being employed to destroy the west in the twenty-first.

After they covered the smoldering remains of pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh, once the last stone struck the gay man in Syria, one could imagine the evening call to prayer where the faithful, moderates and otherwise, came to give thanks to Allah, having struck another blow in their quest for worldwide domination.

Get used to that sound. It’s a sound you can hear all over the United States. It is the sound of the coming storm. It is, after all, “..one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset.”

Enter your email address and I'll let you know when I post!

Join 244 other followers

hey, pick a topic

Other stuff you gotta see…

The Matt Walsh Blog

Absolute Truths (and alpaca grooming tips) **Facebook.com/MattWalshBlog

Moonbattery

totally random and unconnected thoughts...

The Gateway Pundit

totally random and unconnected thoughts...

Linkiest.com

totally random and unconnected thoughts...

totally random and unconnected thoughts...

CanadaFreePress.Com

totally random and unconnected thoughts...

ExposeTheMedia.com

Just another WordPress.com site

Accuracy In Media

totally random and unconnected thoughts...

robakers

A fine WordPress.com site

Bucket List Publications

Indulge- Travel, Adventure, & New Experiences

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 244 other followers