Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Obama amnesty is unconstitutional” [Darleen Click]

King Barry will not be amused

A federal judge has found parts of President Obama’s new deportation amnesty to be unconstitutional, issuing a scathing memo Tuesday accusing him of usurping Congress’s power to make laws, and dismantling most of the White House’s legal reasoning for circumventing Congress.

Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the western district of Pennsylvania, said presidents do have powers to use discretion in deciding how to enforce the law, but said Mr. Obama’s new policy goes well beyond that, setting up a full system for granting legal protections to broad groups of individuals. He said Mr. Obama writing laws — a power that’s reserved for Congress, not the president.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Judge Schwab wrote.

The judge also said the policy allows illegal immigrants “to obtain substantive rights.”

I hope Judge Schwab has his taxes in order.

66 Replies to ““Obama amnesty is unconstitutional” [Darleen Click]”

  1. mojo says:

    Nah, child porn on his home computer.

  2. bgbear says:

    “Santa” might deliver a drone for the good little judge.

  3. serr8d says:

    One good Judge. But Congreff is allowing a skew of OBraggart’s appointees to slouch into office.

  4. McGehee says:

    No need for a counterattack; the Mass Stupidity Media will simply ignore the ruling.

    Like it never even happened.

  5. bgbear says:

    The judge must do his own yard work so does not sympathize like Obama does.

  6. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Everything is proceeding as Mickey Kaus has forseen.

  7. Ouroboros says:

    Off Topic…. but Happy Hanukkah!

  8. eCurmudgeon says:

    Nah, child porn on his home computer.

    I’d advise the judge to stay away from hot tubs and small aircraft.

  9. geoffb says:

    Again, there was no presidential executive order creating amnesty, there was no presidential memorandum either. There was simply a “Who will rid me of this troublesome priest” moment.

    On Thursday, Nov. 20, President Obama gave a nationally televised address from the East Room, in which he gave the impression he was issuing an executive order.

    But Friday, Nov. 21, when Obama flew to Las Vegas, the two executive orders that Obama did sign were unrelated to deferring prosecution for three years for the DREAMER parents who had been in the United States since Jan. 1, 2010 and were current on their taxes.

    The two executive orders involved creating study groups on immigration.

    One was a Presidential Proclamation creating a White House Task Force on New Americans and the other being a Presidential Memorandum instructing the secretaries of State and DHS to consult with various governmental and non-governmental entities to reduce costs and improve service in issuing immigrant and non-immigrant visas.

    Last week, the National Archives and Records Administration, NARA, in College Park, MD, that President Obama signed no executive directive of any kind ordering the Department of Homeland Security to implement deferred prosecution in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, program, despite efforts by the White House give the impression to the mainstream media, to Congress, and to the American people that he had done so.

    Technically, under the advice of his army of administration lawyers, what Obama did for the DREAMER parents was to take an “executive action,” not sign an “executive order.”

    Why? It’s simple. An executive action is nothing more than an advisory statement instructing the executive branch to consider taking some particular action.

    The point is a president can be impeached for issuing an executive order that nullifies existing immigration law, but Obama will not be impeached for taking an executive action that induces a bureaucrat like DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson from signing an internal DHS “memorandum” that accomplishes the same purpose.

    Jeh Johnson issued the order.

  10. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Then impeach Jeh Johnson.

  11. McGehee says:

    The President can’t legislate, but a Cabinet secretary… also can’t.

  12. sdferr says:

    Each day a new surrender — which surrender seems to have become the organizing principle of a new American experience. Yesterday, to Iran on the one hand, or to ClownDisaster’s legislative usurpations. Today, to Cuba, or whatever fresh groveling the GOP turns up. What a shiny world.

  13. geoffb says:

    But, hey, fine cigars and cheap vacations and healthcare await.

  14. sdferr says:

    Best of all the United States has no enemies . . .

    . . . only conquerors.

    And who can’t pity the victim in all things?

  15. geoffb says:

    Victims……………………..

    Barack and Michelle Obama are sharing their own personal experiences with racial prejudice, saying they’ve been mistaken for valet drivers and Target employees—the latter even occurring during their time at the White House.

    “The only person who came up to me in the [Target] store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf. Because she didn’t see me as the first lady, she saw me as someone who could help her,” Michelle Obama told People magazine, recalling a trip she made to Target, according to excerpts released Wednesday.

    If you look at after what happened with Michael Brown, if you looked at what happened after Trayvon, if you looked at the decision after Eric Garner, I’m being pretty explicit about my concern, and being pretty explicit about the fact that this is a systemic problem, that black folks and Latinos and others are not just making this up,”

    I guess I’m a victim too as I get asked all the time to reach something on the top shelf. And I don’t have a security detail following me around so I’d look even more like “the help.”

  16. McGehee says:

    My reply to Obama’s “valet” story.

  17. McGehee says:

    Writing off South Florida for the Dems, at least for 2016.

  18. McGehee at 1048.

    Now that’s funny, McGehee, I don’t care who you are.

  19. Ernst Schreiber says:

    “The only person who came up to me in the [Target] store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf. Because she didn’t see me as the first lady, she saw me as someone who could help her,”

    Really, that woman got through the cordon of secret service and staffers and media hangers-on to ask M’Chelle to reach a box up high for her?

    Well, I guess she is klingonishly tall….

    So. Did she help the woman, or did she ask one of her lackies to do it for her?

  20. Ernst Schreiber says:

    As for the Manchurian President and Cuba, I don’t remember what exactly Senator Obama said in praise of Gorbachev when he first ran for President (and after six years, how do you even find it?), but I can remember thinking, just because Reagan won the Cold War, doesn’t mean Obama can’t still lose it.

    Yet more evidence on what Obama meant by flexibility.

  21. sdferr says:

    Here is a simple question regarding Mrs. ClownDisaster’s possibly spurious tale: where is the unnamed woman accused of dastardly prejudice? Let her step forward in self-defense.

  22. McGehee says:

    So. Did she help the woman, or did she ask one of her lackies to do it for her?

    Define “help.”

  23. bgbear says:

    where is the unnamed woman accused of dastardly prejudice? Let her step forward in self-defense

    I think it was Valerie Jarret.

    For Obama’s story, I was wondering if he had taken off his tux jacket. You would look like a valet if you did, I don’t care who you are.

  24. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I dunno. Pass a law requiring all store shelves to be no more than 4′ high? Launch a Justice Department investigation into systemic heightism?

  25. Ernst Schreiber says:

    That’s another story that’s bullshit, unless it happened before Obama was elected to the Senate.

    In which case, why wouldn’t you mistake him for a valet?

  26. geoffb says:

    Obama said: “The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”

    Obama introduced himself to the Berlin crowd as a proud U.S. citizen and a “fellow citizen of the world.”

    The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep.

    And we all shall run naked before the whips of our masters, no walls, no fences, no sanctuary, nowhere to hide or stand.

  27. Blake says:

    There is no way Obama was ever mistaken for a valet.

    Generally, valets hustle and are polite.

    Definitely not the story of Obama.

  28. happyfeet says:

    if obama’s amnesty is unconstitutional then he shouldn’t do it

    simple as that

    this is why he gets shitty tips

  29. McGehee says:

    Obama said: “The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”

    Sir Thomas More said: “And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?”

  30. McGehee says:

    Of course he does, Sir Thomas. He’s a better theologian than all 12 Apostles.

  31. newrouter says:

    >The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”<

    "In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

    link

  32. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Well, as bad as things look, at least we can thank God that we still get to make fun of North Korean dictators!

  33. newrouter says:

    dicktators are all the rage

  34. newrouter says:

    >
    hysteria

    Also found in: Medical, Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
    hys·ter·i·a
    (h?-st?r??-?, -stir?-)
    n.
    1. Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.
    2. A group of psychiatric symptoms, including heightened emotionality, attention-seeking behavior, and physical symptoms in the absence of organic pathology. The symptoms of hysteria are currently attributed to any of several psychiatric conditions, including somatization disorder, multiple personality disorder, and histrionic personality disorder. The term hysteria is no longer used in clinical use. wonder why proggtards?

    link

  35. geoffb says:

    Interesting things seem to pop up searching in 2008-9 on “Obama Gorbachev.” Thanks Ernst.

    All of this, Gorbachev said, was “aimed at the demilitarization of international relations,” the changing of the world economy “from an economy of armament to an economy of disarmament,” and “the movement toward a nuclear-free and nonviolent world.” He saluted Ronald Reagan, whose term was just ending, and with whom he had already agreed in principle to abolish nuclear weapons. He hoped to continue, and promised that the “newly elected President George Bush will find in us a partner . . . It seems to us we have the preconditions for making 1989 the decisive year.”

    Gorbachev was correct about that – from his side. In 1989, because of that UN speech, the satellite nations decisively claimed their freedom. … But from the side of the United States, 1989 had been decisive in an opposite way. … [T]he new American president ordered tens of thousands of US troops to invade Panama – Operation Just Cause. That wholly unjustified action amounted to America’s answer to Gorbachev, a declaration that this nation was a long way from the “demilitarization of international relations.” Other unnecessary American wars would follow, and so would Washington’s refusal to dismantle its Cold War military economy.

    The “decisive year” for which Gorbachev called two decades ago may now be here – for our side. Americans stand today, as the last Soviet dictator put it then, “on the threshold of a year from which all of us expect so much. One would like to believe that our joint efforts to put an end to the era of wars, confrontation and regional conflicts, aggression against nature, the terror of hunger and poverty, as well as political terrorism, will be comparable with our hopes.”

    Is it too much to expect Barack Obama to change history? Make peace? Transform an economic system? Rescue the Earth? Build a political program around the truth? Restore a great nation’s decency? Are we kidding ourselves to place such hopes in him?

    On the cusp of this decisive year, it will do Americans well to recall that just such a transformation took place once before, even if we declined to respond with transformation of our own. By the grace of God, it is not too late to match the greatness with which Gorbachev acted 20 years ago, an overdue acceptance of his historic invitation. “This is our common goal,” he concluded, “and it is only by acting together that we may attain it. Thank you.”

    So many common-hopes-and-dreams squashed flat.

  36. newrouter says:

    >Interesting things seem to pop up searching in 2008-9 on “Obama Gorbachev.” <

    Communists Win the Day. Frank Marshall Davis Would Be Proud Of Obama

  37. newrouter says:

    >8}Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe. . . .

    {9}The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.

    {10}Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system. <

    link

  38. geoffb says:

    Obama’s remarks in Pendelton, Ore., on May 18, 2008

    “Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries,” Obama said. “That’s what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That’s what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we’re going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall. Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take.

    “You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn’t mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that have caused us so many problems around the world.”

    Little – weak presidents surrender to their country’s “tiny” enemies because….?

  39. Ernst Schreiber says:

    [W]e were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we’re going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall.

    There’s rather a lot elided there, don’t you think?

  40. newrouter says:

    >There’s rather a lot elided there, don’t you think?<

    baracky? idiot ruining class mostly sir. him and billy arsehole.

  41. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I was speaking more of all that stuff that crazy idiot dinosuar ropin’ hollywood cowboy did that would have blown the world up if Gorbachev hadn’t been so wise and restrained in the face of such terrible provocation.

  42. newrouter says:

    > {11}Why in fact did our greengrocer have to put his loyalty on display in the shop window? Had he not already displayed it sufficiently in various internal or semipublic ways? At trade union meetings, after all, he had always voted as he should. He had always taken part in various competitions. He voted in elections like a good citizen. He had even signed the “antiCharter.” Why, on top of all that, should he have to declare his loyalty publicly? After all, the people who walk past his window will certainly not stop to read that, in the greengrocer’s opinion, the workers of the world ought to unite. The fact of the matter is, they don’t read the slogan at all, and it can be fairly assumed they don’t even see it. If you were to ask a woman who had stopped in front of his shop what she saw in the window, she could certainly tell whether or not they had tomatoes today, but it is highly unlikely that she noticed the slogan at all, let alone what it said.

    {12}It seems senseless to require the greengrocer to declare his loyalty publicly. But it makes sense nevertheless. People ignore his slogan, but they do so because such slogans are also found in other shop windows, on lampposts, bulletin boards, in apartment windows, and on buildings; they are everywhere, in fact. They form part of the panorama of everyday life. Of course, while they ignore the details, people are very aware of that panorama as a whole. And what else is the greengrocer’s slogan but a small component in that huge backdrop to daily life?

    {13}The greengrocer had to put the slogan in his window, therefore, not in the hope that someone might read it or be persuaded by it, but to contribute, along with thousands of other slogans, to the panorama that everyone is very much aware of. This panorama, of course, has a subliminal meaning as well: it reminds people where they are living and what is expected of them. It tells them what everyone else is doing, and indicates to them what they must do as well, if they don’t want to be excluded, to fall into isolation, alienate themselves from society, break the rules of the game, and risk the loss of their peace and tranquility and security. . . .

    {14}Let us now imagine that one day something in our greengrocer snaps and he stops putting up the slogans merely to ingratiate himself. He stops voting in elections he knows are a farce. He begins to say what he really thinks at political meetings. And he even finds the strength in himself to express solidarity with those whom his conscience commands him to support. In this revolt the greengrocer steps out of living within the lie. He rejects the ritual and breaks the rules of the game. He discovers once more his suppressed identity and dignity. He gives his freedom a concrete significance. His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth. . . .

    {15}The bill is not long in coming. He will be relieved of his post as manager of the shop and transferred to the warehouse. His pay will be reduced. His hopes for a holiday in Bulgaria will evaporate. His children’s access to higher education will be threatened. His superiors will harass him and his fellow workers will wonder about him. Most of those who apply these sanctions, however, will not do so from any authentic inner conviction but simply under pressure from conditions, the same conditions that once pressured the greengrocer to display the official slogans. They will persecute the greengrocer either because it is expected of them, or to demonstrate their loyalty, or simply as part of the general panorama, to which belongs an awareness that this is how situations of this sort are dealt with, that this, in fact, is how things are always done, particularly if one is not to become suspect oneself. The executors, therefore, behave essentially like everyone else, to a greater or lesser degree: as components of the post-totalitarian system, as agents of its automatism, as petty instruments of the social auto-totality.

    {16}Thus the power structure, through the agency of those who carry out the sanctions, those anonymous components of the system, will spew the greengrocer from its mouth. The system, through its alienating presence in people, will punish him for his rebellion. It must do so because the logic of its automatism and self-defense dictate it. The greengrocer has not committed a simple, individual offense, isolated in its own uniqueness, but something incomparably more serious. By breaking the rules of the game, he has disrupted the game as such. He has exposed it as a mere game. He has shattered the world of appearances, the fundamental pillar of the system. He has upset the power structure by tearing apart what holds it together. He has demonstrated that living a lie is living a lie. He has broken through the exalted facade of the system and exposed the real, base foundations of power. He has said that the emperor is naked. And because the emperor is in fact naked, something extremely dangerous has happened: by his action, the greengrocer has addressed the world. He has enabled everyone to peer behind the curtain. He has shown everyone that it is possible to live within the truth. Living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal. The principle must embrace and permeate everything. There are no terms whatsoever on which it can co-exist with living within the truth, and therefore everyone who steps out of line denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety. . . .

    {17}The original and most important sphere of activity, one that predetermines all the others, is simply an attempt to create and support the independent life of society as an articulated expression of living within the truth. In other words, serving truth consistently, purposefully, and articulately, and organizing this service. This is only natural, after all: if living within the truth is an elementary starting point for every attempt made by people to oppose the alienating pressure of the system, if it is the only meaningful basis of any independent act of political import, and if, ultimately, it is also the most intrinsic existential source of the “dissident” attitude, then it is difficult to imagine that even manifest “dissent” could have any other basis than the service of truth, the truthful life, and the attempt to make room for the genuine aims of life.

    <

    link

  43. newrouter says:

    > By breaking the rules of the game, he has disrupted the game as such. He has exposed it as a mere game. He has shattered the world of appearances, the fundamental pillar of the system. He has upset the power structure by tearing apart what holds it together. He has demonstrated that living a lie is living a lie. He has broken through the exalted facade of the system and exposed the real, base foundations of power. He has said that the emperor is naked<

    Cruz: I’m Not Trying to Play the Washington Rules, I’m Trying to Change the Rules

  44. geoffb says:

    Speak loudly and burn-bury your own stick. Or all hat and no cattle to use another old saying.

    The pieces from back then allude that it was Gorbachev who, wisely, magnanimously, saved the world and brought about world peace by [himself] unilaterally dismantling the Warsaw Pact, the Communist Party, and the USSR because it was the only way to assuage the blood lust of that cowboy and his crazy nation.

    Obama is just following that saintly example.

  45. newrouter says:

    ted cruz/havel/me good luck. do it!

  46. newrouter says:

    >“I am not trying to play the rules of Washington, because I think Washington’s broken, I think it’s profoundly broken,” Cruz said. “And I think the only answer is to change Washington. Let me give you a tech example. In the tech world, you have disruptive apps that come in and disrupt the means of distributing a good or service. Let’s take for example, Uber coming in or Lyft coming into a city… The taxi commissions have done everything they can to kill Uber and Lyft. What we’re trying to do in the political world is very much the same thing, which is change the means of decision making, take it out of the smoke-filled rooms, where decision making is done in Washington between career politicians and lobbyists and instead empower the people. In my view, the only way we can turn this country around is if the American people rise up and hold every one of us accountable.”

    “So I’m not trying to play the Washington rules,” he added. “I’m trying to change the rules and make elected officials, myself included, accountable to the people who elected us.”ld be looking for whoever is standing up and leading, we should be standing up for whoever is fighting today. Whoever is making the case that the Obama economy is a disaster, that we have got to restore America’s leadership in the world. My advice, by my measure, there are a whole bunch of republican senators who are thinking about running in 2016. My advice to every one of them is stand up and lead. I would be thrilled if a year from now, we see a half dozen senators and governors arm in arm, leading together and making the case that the Obama agenda isn’t working and there is a better path.”<

  47. McGehee says:

    The pieces from back then allude that it was Gorbachev who, wisely, magnanimously, saved the world and brought about world peace by [himself] unilaterally dismantling the Warsaw Pact, the Communist Party, and the USSR because it was the only way to assuage the blood lust of that cowboy and his crazy nation.

    Obama is just following that saintly example.

    As several wise people keep saying, Leftism is a mental illness.

  48. sdferr says:

    And we all shall run naked before the whips of our masters, no walls, no fences, no sanctuary, nowhere to hide or stand.

    Though the pretensions of the ClownDisaster and his types aim at a sort of enslavement of his subjects, nevertheless the subjects are yet empowered to notice that it’s the Emperor who is naked. It only takes the tiny voice of a naif to point this out. To that end, I wrote yesterday of the simple question: “where is the unnamed woman accused of dastardly prejudice?”

    Lo and behold, her sister (a naif) has stepped forward to defend her honor. And the possibility remains that the accused herself may be persuaded to speak, saying something along the lines of ** look at the nakedness of this Mrs. ClownDisaster as she sqwacks her lies **. To which, taking her cue from Mr. KimJongUn no doubt, Mrs. ClownDisaster can bark ** Silence!, peasant, lest your movie theaters meet with a terrible destruction! **

  49. geoffb says:

    She who self-refutes herself.

  50. RI Red says:

    I find it very interesting that mark levin was giving a history of the revolution tonight. I wonder if he is already looking beyond a failed article V convention.

  51. newrouter says:

    >I wonder if he is already looking beyond a failed article V convention.<

    well if i had the luck to talk to m. levin about his art. v convention it would be this:

    1) Keep It Simple Stupid

    2) 12 year term limits for house, senate, courts, and bureaucrats

    3) debt ceiling set @ $10 trillion sell assets to meet figure. 2/3 state legislatures approval to raise it.

    the article v actions at this point are failshitamerica bankruptcy proceedings.

  52. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Well. In keeping with the spirit of this latest revelation about Jackie then:

    That girl’s brain is a bag full of cats. You can smell the crazy on her.

  53. McGehee says:

    My pet rock can smell the crazy on her. As for cats, if she owned any, she’d own 100 — and by now they would have killed and eaten her.

    In self-defense.

  54. guinspen says:

    It’s here!

  55. guinspen says:

    Hello you good old Christmas, Hawaiiah?

Comments are closed.