The Conservative Hawk

31 Jul

Cash For Clunkers; Turns Out To Be A Lemon

Another Brilliant Idea From The Obama Administration:

This exceedingly idiotic idea was ill-conceived from the start, as are most of Obama’s ideas.  It was done under the guise of being an environmental plan, but it has no hope of doing anything for the environment and it will be defunct after roughly a week.  Make no mistake. This program was not for the environment. It was a taxpayer funded subsidy to promote the UAW and Obama Motors.

This program was supposed to last through the end of this year. WHAT A SHOCKER that a plan of Obama’s hasn’t quite worked out.

The government take-over of the banking industry and the automobile industry was his first incredibly failed venture.

Now, the cash for clunkers program has failed at lightening speed.

And these are the same people that want to take over our health care system. Can anyone guess how that’s going to turn out?  Just ask yourself to come up with one single venture the government runs efficiently or that works well. You wont find any.

We are in for a bumpy ride that we will never be able to recover from. Once this cesspool of Obama government bureaucrats gets their greedy little hands on our health care system, we will never be able to fix his mess.

09 Jul

It’s Not Iran. It’s the Obama Administration

10 Jun

Randy Forbes (R-Va) hit it on the head.

Congressman Forbes asks the questions “Did America ever consider itself a Judeo-Christian nation?” and “If America was once a Judeo-Christian nation, when did it cease to be?”

05 Jun

The ultimate “Bridge To Nowhere”; Obama considering tax on your health insurance.

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama criticized John McCain’s plan to tax health insurance benefits as income and Biden referred to the plan as the “ultimate bridge to nowhere”. Good for them. They should have criticized McCain. It was a hair brained scheme back then and it remains one now. Except for one thing…Now, it’s Obama’s plan.

Most people with job-based health insurance don’t think of their benefits as a form of income. But the Democrat controlled Senate under the direction of the messiah Obama, might just change that.

Senators are considering allowing employer-provided health benefits to be taxed as income in order to help pay for President Barack Obama’s plan to provide coverage to 50 million uninsured Americans.

Obama’s health care plan now includes government administered proctology exams.

04 Jun

Opposite Land (Random Thoughts from Hillbilly Politics)

I really like this post from Hillbilly Politics.  It really says it like it is.

It’s one of the stupider comments coming from the media to congratulate Americans for now owning car companies. We don’t and won’t. The government owns them which is, and has been for awhile now, a totally separate entity from the people it’s supposed to be serving. If there is money made, which is doubtful, it goes to the government first. It won’t be coming back to us, except in the form of congratulating us for pandering to government greed. No, they’ll justify spending the money on anything and everything rather than return it. Have I mentioned lately how much the government is beginning to resemble medieval robber barons?

The Value Added Tax debate rears it’s ugly head again although the government says it’s unlikely. Now, when the government says it’s unlikely, I have a tendency to think that’s exactly what they’re going to do. Obama said he wasn’t intending to nationalize car companies, banks, or insurance companies but that’s exactly what he did.  We’re living in opposite land now, where everything that is said means the opposite of what it used to mean. I remember playing that game as a child but apparently the government has not outgrown such childish games. So, if the federal government adds a national sales tax to everything we buy, in addition to the income tax, fees for various services such as utilities, gasoline for your automobiles, internet service, phone service, and so on, how much is left over from your paycheck?

I must be a more moderate conservative than I thought because I’m not all up in arms over the Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court. Quite frankly, I can’t understand why anybody is. It’s not as if it is a surprise. Instead of agonizing over it, those same people doing the agonizing should have been busy planning how to block it before it happened. Too little, too late, as is usual for either side of the partisan divide.

Is anybody else tired of the phrase “gravely concerned”, yet? Every foreign incident nets the same response: “gravely concerned.”  It’s a meaningless phrase unless followed by meaningful action.  North Korea detonates an atomic bomb and fires missiles.  In addition the country declares that it is no longer subject to the 1953 accords(or armistace. I forget which). Japan and South Korea want to do something about it. Our government is “gravely concerned.” Iran is full steam ahead with their own nuclear program. Our government is “gravely concerned.” Israel is set to act on its own. Our government is “gravely concerned.”  The government seems to be a little light on the action side.

Health care is not free nor will it ever be. I don’t understand why people don’t get that. Tax dollars will pay for a nationalized health care system, which is one of the reasons why the VAT is now being considered. The healthcare industry is a business just like any other business. Can anyone point to any time when the government has efficietnly run a business, including their own since they have become one of the largest employers in the nation?

Why do we keep taking their words at face value when we’ve been shown time and again that they mean the opposite of what they say?

We need someone who will challenge all the nonsensical politics with a simple question: Is what they’re doing Constitutional? Only in opposite land because what the Constitution says means the opposite. :???:

03 Jun

Janean, please seek professional help!

Reviewing old stories and posts, I really need to put this one up, even though I orignially decided not to give this psychopathic nut another forum.

I know it is an old story, but every time I see it, it makes me laugh even more than the last. This is the story of the left-wing radical nut case, Janeane Garafalo, calling the “Tea Party” attendees “rednecks” and “racists”. You should get a kick out of it if you have not already seen it.

On Countdown with Keith Olbermann in April; Janeane Garofalo went on another one of her insane rants about the Tea Parties being held around the country.

Atlas Shrugs wrote, “Garofalo is sick, mentally ill. And Olbermann agreeing with this insanity … the left position is, if you disagree with the plant in the White House, you are a racist” – Atlas hit it completely square on the head.

There can never be enough descriptive words expressed about this putrid sorry excuse for a human being. The Urban Conservative writes, “this deranged mass of human waste dressed as a human being, Garofalo sickens me with the rhetoric that comes out of her sub-human gargantuan swamp of a mouth. Anyone who takes this worthless parasite serious has got some serious problems. I sure am glad that no one even watches Olbermann anyway. He’s quite the idiot himself.”  It’s really hard to believe Olbermann referred to this as a “more serious note”.

What a useless scumbag.

02 Jun

Reverse Party Logic Proves Faulty

From Billy Hallowell

“Agree with her or not, she seems like a sweet kid who means well.”’s Allah Pundit recently Tweeted this reassuring proclamation to his followers. The subject: Meghan McCain. The context: Her political philosophy. Surely, Allah Pundit’s right. Meghan does, indeed, have good intentions. But it is her somewhat anti-conservative viewpoints about which direction the Republican Party should head that drive a wedge between her and her constituents.

In reality, Meghan’s perspectives comprise just one of the many tenants competing for GOP dominance in a smorgasbord of ideological muck. Conservatives and Republicans are embroiled in a high-stakes battle-of -the-ideals, with all sides vying to capture the party’s heart and soul.

Unfortunately, some conservatives have forgotten that we live in a constitutional democracy. If you’ll recall, Laura Ingram was so incensed over Meghan’s political proclamations that she called her a “useful idiot” and made fun of her physical appearance. Just as Miss California had every right to voice her perspective during Sunday’s Miss USA pageant, so does Meghan McCain have the right to express where she stands on her party’s sociopolitical alignment (I bring up this totally random side-note to remind conservatives not to perpetuate a double standard when criticizing “rogue conservatives.” This is America. May we all speak freely).

Two, Contrasting Perspectives

So, what’s the big deal about Meghan, you ask? She describes herself as a Progressive Republican. Others, like political strategist Patrick Ruffini, would likely counter efforts to bestow such an anti-conservative title upon the party. Ruffini sees a need within the movement to return to conservatism – an effort to clarify party roots, while infusing the values and ethics that made the Republican Party so appealing to the Reaganites.

In truth, this brief description is less that a totalistic view of what is occurring within the GOP; Meghan and Patrick merely represent two opposing sides, with a middle-range so diverse it couldn’t possibly be captured in mere paragraphs. Ideological stances are surely in battle, but I’d hardly call it a full-fledged war. The Republican Party has lost step and those within it are attempting to repair its standing. The point of contention surrounds defining a literal meaning for “repair” and crafting an action plan that the majority of the party can embrace.

This past week on Twitter, Patrick said, “We can be more conservative AND more aggressive / dynamic / forward focused. These things are not in tension.” In contrast, Meghan McCain recently wrote, “I consider myself a progressive Republican…” and claimed that “…being a Republican is about as edgy as Donny Osmond.” Talk about a difference of opinion.

The two contrasting perspectives define, in a macro sense, the issues facing the party. While I am a big believer that current perspective is important in determining next steps, exploring the past is the best way to predict what’s to come in politics. A recent history lesson shows us that moving in the opposite ideological direction isn’t necessarily indicative of future success. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the democrats. Following its 2004 electoral defeat, the Democratic Party moved so far left that it’s currently dangling off a cliff over a sea of socialistic decree. Barack Obama’s nomination and subsequent election is the literal manifestation of this reality.

Clinging to the Outer Fringes

Aside from his overt inclination for “spreading the wealth” and his less than moderate positioning on issues like abortion and diplomatic relations with rogue nations like Iran, from 2004 and 2008, Barack Obama distinguished himself as the most liberal member of the United States Senate (or, as the Democrat’s like to say, he earned the title of “Miss Congeniality”). That’s like a baby learning to run before taking first steps. Or, to put it in a more realistic perspective: When a party embraces a candidate whose ADA rating beats Ted Kennedy’s, one can safely say that said party is clinging to the outer fringes of liberalism. Barack Obama is the most left-leaning president America has elected to date. Hands down.

The GOP is now the Democratic Party post-Kerry. This in mind, the notion that becoming more “liberal” will redefine the party in a positive way just doesn’t make sense. Unless Republicans want to see a split that rivals the Catholic-Protestant disunion, I’d advise against such a move.

If you follow the Democratic model, you’ll see a party that elevated another ADA-favorite and a liberal, yet average guy — John Kerry — to take on George W. Bush during a time of relative domestic and international instability (2004). Following electoral defeat and a steady increase in discontent, the Democrats saw a clear opportunity in 2008 to make “change” through the nomination of the most left-minded candidate they could find. Enter, Barack Obama.

A State of Shear Dormancy

When I hear the debate about how the GOP should react, I wonder: Have some Republicans been in a dormant state? Are drugs that induce sense-retardant inclinations being consumed without their knowledge? Don’t they get it? From health care to abortion rights, Barack Obama thinks we’ve done it all wrong. His self-proclaimed mission is to reboot any and all conservatively-influenced policies and his prescription for success is a hyper dose of Democratic doctrine. Meanwhile, Americans are encouraged to stand by while he continues to perform euthanasia on the financial markets.

What simply doesn’t make sense from a strategic or logical standpoint is the idea that becoming Democratic Light will equate to a positive reformation for the Republicans in 2010, 2012 and beyond. Did the Democrats make themselves more conservative, or more moderate for that matter following their 2004 defeat? The most recent bailout and tax code changes should answer that question for you.

As much as I believe Meghan McCain to be an effective leader and someone who does, indeed, deeply care for her country (she is John McCain’s daughter, after all), I deeply disagree with some of her insinuations that the party must move left for sake of survival. Retracing our conservative steps is the answer to formulating a true contingency plan. America doesn’t need a more liberal GOP; she needs a more rational and doctrine-abiding one.

To clarify, this means looking at where the GOP has been in an effort to retrace and correct party wrongs. This process transcends architectural tweaks to the party; it requires recapturing the movement’s heart and soul. It’s not about gay marriage – or abortion (to name only two controversial social issues). This is not to say that conservatives cannot and should not hold opinions about these issues. Everyone is entitled to individual perspective (yes, even Meghan McCain). But, if we truly want to save capitalism, the conservative heart must shift focus to the most pressing issue of our time: America’s economic decline. Fiscal conservatism is the answer.

Conservatives, for what it’s worth, have stuck solidly to the structures surrounding America’s social paradigms, but we have neglected and abandoned our small government mantra. We have allowed our own party members to engage in excessive spending, while sitting back and watching our economic doctrine lay dormant. The fiscal irresponsibility and vampire-esque future-feeding that the current administration is engaging in is a dangerous detriment to our democracy. The GOP needs to retract irresponsible spending policies and make good on its claim that human beings are the primary benefactors and architects of their own destiny.

It’s time to truly embrace small government ideologies. It is not time to abandon our principles in pursuit of a party construct that already exists. What made the GOP so powerful was its embracement of important social and economic issues. In keeping in step, the only natural reaction is to return to our roots, while making good on both areas of political inquiry.

25 Mar

ObamaCare; It’s bad for you health

My friends, over the course of the two decades, society has attacked cigarette smoking,  coffee drinking,  fast foods and driving as being either bad for your health or bad for the environment. I agree that smoking is bad for your health and fast food is bad for your health and maybe drinking coffee is bad for your health.

After we have identified many of the every day things that are bad for your health, the powers that be are seeming to ignore the most deadly. OBAMACARE.

The Heritage Foundation published a study regarding the American Health Care System.  It might be surprising, after hearing the likes of Michael Moore and the rest of his left wing wacko buddies deride the health care system, that it is not as bad as they say, or rather it is much better than those wonderful systems in Canada and the U.K. After reading this, you will better understand that Obama’s true aim is not to make health care better for everyone but to make everyone suffer equally so no one unfairly receives good health care.

“Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world.  Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government rôle in health care.  Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex.  However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America’s health care system should be considered.

Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom.  Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway.  The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease.  By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4] Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

  • Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
  • Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
  • More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
  • Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).

Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent).  Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”[5]

Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long – sometimes more than a year – to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”[9]

Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the “health care system,” more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]

Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11] [See the table.]  The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain.  The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12]

Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13] The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14] Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15] In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize.   Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16] [See the table.]

Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

Scott W. Atlas, M.D., is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at the Stanford University Medical Center. A version of this article appeared previously in the February 18, 2009, Washington Times.

[1] Concord Working Group, “Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study,.S. abe at  responsible for theountries, in s chnologies, ” Lancet Oncology, Vol. 9, No. 8, August 2008, pages 730 – 756; Arduino Verdecchia et al., “Recent Cancer Survival in Europe: A 2000-02 Period Analysis of EUROCARE-4 Data,” Lancet Oncology, Vol. 8, No. 9, September 2007, pages 784 – 796.

[2] U.S. Cancer Statistics, National Program of Cancer Registries, U.S. Centers for Disease Control; Canadian Cancer Society/National Cancer Institute of Canada; also see June O’Neill and Dave M. O’Neill, “Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 13429, September 2007.  Available at

[3] Oliver Schoffski (University of Erlangen-Nuremberg), “Diffusion of Medicines in Europe,” European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, 2002.  Available at  See also Michael Tanner, “The Grass is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems around the World,” Cato Institute, Policy Analysis No. 613, March 18, 2008.  Available at

[4] June O’Neill and Dave M. O’Neill, “Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.”

[5] Ibid.

[6] Nadeem Esmail, Michael A. Walker with Margaret Bank, “Waiting Your Turn, (17th edition) Hospital Waiting Lists In Canada,” Fraser Institute, Critical Issues Bulletin 2007, Studies in Health Care Policy, August 2008; Nadeem Esmail and Dominika Wrona “Medical Technology in Canada,” Fraser Institute, August 21, 2008 ; Sharon Willcox et al., “Measuring and Reducing Waiting Times: A Cross-National Comparison Of Strategies,” Health Affairs, Vol. 26, No. 4, July/August 2007, pages 1,078-87; June O’Neill and Dave M. O’Neill, “Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.”; M.V. Williams et al., “Radiotherapy Dose Fractionation, Access and Waiting Times in the Countries of the U.K.. in 2005,” Royal College of Radiologists, Clinical Oncology, Vol. 19, No. 5, June 2007, pages 273-286.

[7] Nadeem Esmail and Michael A. Walker with Margaret Bank, “Waiting Your Turn 17th Edition: Hospital Waiting Lists In Canada 2007.”

[8] “Hospital Waiting Times and List Statistics,” Department of Health, England.  Available at

[9] Cathy Schoen et al., “Toward Higher-Performance Health Systems: Adults’ Health Care Experiences In Seven Countries, 2007,” Health Affairs, Web Exclusive, Vol. 26, No. 6, October 31, 2007, pages w717-w734.  Available at

[10] June O’Neill and Dave M. O’Neill, “Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.”

[11] Victor R. Fuchs and Harold C. Sox Jr., “Physicians’ Views of the Relative Importance of 30 Medical Innovations,” Health Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 5, September /October 2001, pages 30-42.  Available at

[12] OECD Health Data 2008, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.  Available at,3343,en_2649_34631_12968734_1_1_1_37407,00.html.

[13] “The U.S. Health Care System as an Engine of Innovation,” Economic Report of the President (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2004), 108th Congress, 2nd Session H. Doc. 108-145, February 2004, Chapter 10, pages 190-193, available at; Tyler Cowen, New York Times, Oct. 5, 2006; Tom Coburn, Joseph Antos and Grace-Marie Turner, “Competition: A Prescription for Health Care Transformation,” Heritage Foundation, Lecture No. 1030, April 2007; Thomas Boehm, “How can we explain the American dominance in biomedical research and development?” Journal of Medical Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2005, pages 158-66, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, July 2002.  Available at .

[14] Nicholas D. Kristof, “Franklin Delano Obama,” New York Times, February 28, 2009.  Available at

[15] The Nobel Prize Internet Archive.  Available at

[16] “The U.S. Health Care System as an Engine of Innovation,” 2004 Economic Report of the President.

20 Feb

The Untouchable

I watch a lot of news. CBS, NBC, ABC, World News Tonight, CNN, MSNBC & FOX News.  All of the news channels spent a lot of time chronicling the blunders and gaffes of President Bush. Including the one below when he tried to open a locked door in Beijing after a press conference in 2005.

The video and photos of this event were shown on ALL of the news networks.. YES, EVEN FOX.

But when it comes to President Obama, they tend to clam up. The picture below is of Obama returning from a meeting with Congressional leaders and attempting to enter the White House through a window that he thought was a door.  The funny part is that the only news outlet I saw this on was FOX.

The Daily News had this to say: (Reprinted from the Daily News)

“It looks like President Obama hasn’t gotten acquainted to his White House surroundings. On the way back to the Oval Office Tuesday, the President approached a paned window, instead of the actual door — located a few feet to his right.

Doors didn’t open automatically for Obama’s predecessor either. While making a hasty exit from a 2005 press conference in Beijing, former President George W. Bush tugged on the handles of a door, only to find it locked.

Bush laughed off the blunder, but the pictures still live on as part of Bush’s lame duck legacy. However, there was little note taken of Obama’s rookie mistake.

Obama, who was returning from meeting with Congressional leaders, may have been distracted by Republicans’ icy reception to his $825 billion stimulus package, which is poised to pass on Wednesday even without a groundswell of Republican support.”

20 Jan

The Messiah of Oz?

The historic inauguration of Barack Obama is done. He is the new President of the United States of America. Now let’s see how he does.

Over the course of his campaign, he was elevated to the status of a messiah. Not by the conservatives but by those in his own party. From his groupies hanging on his every “Seinfeldian” word and breaking down in tears and even fainting after his speeches, to his fan clubs in Germany, the UK, Indonesia, Italy and a dozen other socialist countries around the world. They actually did refer to him as “our messiah”.  By the way, “Seinfeldian” refers to a “show about nothing”.

It’s now time for him to fulfill his campagin promises. So which ones will he fulfill first? Hmmmm. Lets see. Will he close Gitmo first as promised on day one? No, he says he may need to leave it opened for at least four more years because all of the sudden, those terrorist imprisoned there have become “dangerous”. Notice that they were not dangerous  during the Presidency of Bush, but now they are.

Will he provide welfare checks to the 30% of working Americans who do not pay taxes as he promised in his “95% of Americans will recieve a tax cut” speech? No. Now there are members of his party who think it would be dangerous to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.  A few Democrat Senators now say they should continue the Bush tax cuts.  Notice how they refer to them as the Bush tax cuts now, but when Bush was the President, they were the “tax cuts for the rich.”

Will he withdraw us immediately from Iraq as promised? Hmmmm. Don’t think so, his administration has now adopted the timeline for withdrawal instituted by the Bush Administration.

The wizardry that was his campaign – “say anything to get elected” is going to prove to be problematic for him. He bribed the public with the public’s money and made impossible promises on the war in Iraq. Now he is in quite a spot. He can never fulfill most of his campaign promises because, most economists agree that if he does, it would end the deep recession we are in, in favor of a decade long depression.

In the future, I’ll Post an “Obama Promises” page containing the date and time Obama breaks or fulfills each of his promises. Keep a watch out for that one.

© 2017 The Conservative Hawk | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)

Global Positioning System Gazettewordpress logo