Still Pissed Off About the Hawley-Smoot Tariff

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Supreme Court Gives Pro-Lifers a Free Speech Victory

The headline made it sound like this was a snub to the pro-choice crowd. Were I a conspiracy theorist, I would speculate that it's because left-leaning media outlets know they can drum up support for their views better by misrepresenting the news. Good thing I'm not a conspiracy theorist, right?

Anyway, the basics of the case are this: abortion clinic protestors like to go to abortion clinics and, you know, protest. You'd think the perpetually-aggrieved Left would be happy about people exercising their free speech rights, but you'd be wrong. In fact, the ACLU filed lawsuits under RICO statutes to try to get the pro-life demonstrators to shut up. That's right, RICO, a statute designed to combat organized crime. They're alleging that protestors are like the Mafia. The case is Schiedler v. National Organization for Women.

Eight Supreme Court justices saw through that ridiculous argument (Alito didn't take part in the consideration of the case), which means there are some signs of intelligence on the left side of the Court still. In fact, the opinion was written by the very liberal Stephen Breyer. What is amazing to me is that the ACLU and other (supposed) supporters of free speech in this country were so enthusiastic about relying on expanded prosecution power to silence points of view with which they disagree.

When I was in law school, I took a First Amendment class. Based on the usual discussions, it's safe to say that most of the students in there were very liberal (as in, they didn't think John Kerry was liberal enough for their tastes). We discussed the First Amendment and its applications to all sorts of ridiculous protests, and in every single case, the lefties supported the protestor's right to protest in such a silly fashion. I overheard one student ask the professor for advice on how to disrupt traffic and get arrested to protest a Bush campaign speech (the professor wisely suggested the student choose a different outlet for his political energy). These students vigorously supported even the right of the KKK and neo-Nazis to hold rallies, in the famous Skokie case.

And yet when it came to abortion clinic protests, not a single one of them would defend the free speech rights of those with whom they disagreed.

Actually, the best part was when I overheard one guy, before class started, chatting with some neighbors about how he used to live near an abortion clinic, and how he would see the protestors there all the time. He wondered out loud, "don't these people have jobs?" Heh. Welcome to the world of conservativism, bud. That's what I wondered about pretty much every single lefty protest. Sad that it only occurred to him to ask the question in the context of speech that he would rather see banned.

Note that the case is not really about the First Amendment. It's about the interpretation of a criminal statute about extortion, robbery, and threatened violence. The amazing thing is that on two levels, fundamental to liberal activists, the liberals in this case argued against their usual interests. In terms of the First Amendment, they want to narrow free speech. In terms of criminal prosecution, they want expanded government powers and tougher criminal laws. The only way to understand the lawsuit, then, is to understand that to a liberal, the right to abortion is more important than Free Speech, and the right to abortion is more important than limiting police powers. That says something very significant about the fight we're going to see over the next Supreme Court justice, especially if there are multiple abortion statute cases pending before the Supreme Court.

Update: I like this. Over at NOW's home page, the panic-stricken headline reads: "Supreme Court Ends Protection Against Abortion Clinic Violence." Uh huh. Yeah, I'll bet that's how Ruth Bader Ginsburg would describe it, right? I guess that means I can go start killing women near abortion clinics, and the Supreme Court will be perfectly okay with that. Another way to write that headline is "Supreme Court declines to expand police power to prosecute protestors based on their viewpoint," but you know, whatever.

This is also good: "The Supreme Court has issued a ruling that could add to the increasing difficulty women face in obtaining reproductive health services."

But see, it's not really "reproductive health" if your actions are designed to prevent reproduction, right? And yet liberals accuse conservatives of 1984-ish Newspeak. Good job dumbing down the English language, NOW.

As long as I'm at it: I guess I may as well fisk the whole thing.

"If the Court's 8-0 decision in Scheidler, et al., v. National Organization for Women (NOW), et al. and Operation Rescue v. NOW, et al. ushers in a return to clinic violence in the United States, NOW stands ready to fight in every jurisdiction."

That's a really curious choice of words, there. First we're given a nice scare tactic: Clinic Violence! Suggesting, of course, that violenc is a bad thing. So what does NOW propose to do about it? Fight in Every Jurisdiction! Eh, that's more of a style criticism than anything, I guess, but noteworthy.

"For two decades, NOW has pursued every legal strategy, including three Supreme Court cases, to stave off the violent attacks that gripped this country from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s."

I especially love this kind of thing. They're suggesting that, but for the efforts of NOW and similar groups, violent attacks would otherwise not be subject to prosecution. Because you know, it's not like any state has laws against assault and battery, or attempted murder, or anything of that nature. That's why the wise Solons at NOW have to wrest RICO statutes out of context -- because otherwise it's perfectly legal to make violent attacks on abortion clinic patrons!!!


"This case, brought under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, was one of the most successful long-term strategies. The federal jury found unanimously that these defendants had engaged in a nationwide criminal enterprise to close women's health clinics through extortion, violence and threats of violence, and specified over a hundred acts in furtherance of their efforts."

And then the Supreme Court told you that RICO isn't designed to let you stifle free speech when you don't agree with it. You have my sympathies. Also, let me highlight that according to NOW, the finding was made, but by a jury, but by a grand jury. Think NOW is going to explain the difference to you? No, not when an explanation hurts their case. If leaving you in the dark serves their purposes, well, then I guess you'll be left in the dark.

The problem is that a grand jury is empanelled to determine whether they think a prosecutor might be able to prove some set of facts to show a crime has been committed. The burden of proof is extremely low. Nobody cites grand jury findings unless the actual jury's findings aren't helpful.

"The filing of this case and the resulting injunction, which protected clinics nationwide, contributed to the dramatic reduction in clinic violence that we have witnessed in recent years, and we will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to protect women's right to obtain abortion services."

Again, not that you would know it from reading this article, but attacking people has always been illegal. You don't need RICO to fight it. A simple assault and battery statute will do the trick, I promise.

"This case was never about protests or pickets—it was about violence and extortion."

Right. It was actually about NOW hysterically grasping at straws to save their invented abortion rights. Incidentally, what do you suppose are the odds that the next quoted sentence will try to frighten readers with unfounded scare tactics?

"But without strong protections against clinic assaults, the legal right to abortion could become meaningless."

I stand vindicated. As I noted above, the Supreme Court's decision is really all about interpreting language in a statute. If NOW is concerned that women will be inadequately protected, they can always approach Congress (or state legislatures) and say, "hey, could you change some of the language of that statute to provide stiffer penalties for people who attack clinics?" It worked after the Kelo case, you know.

"If women are too terrified to walk into clinics and healthcare providers are too terrified to keep their doors open, then we will have lost the fight for reproductive freedom even with Roe v. Wade still on the books."

You keep using that word, "reproductive." I do not think it means what you think it means.

"We will not let that happen."

Good, I was worried there, for a second.

"NOW helped to draft and enact the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act in 1994..."

Hey, look at that. It looks like NOW does know what a legislature is. That's a pleasant surprise.

"...and we will use that law to its fullest extent in pursuing those who would use violent means to prevent women from making their own reproductive decisions."

There's that "r" word again. Maybe someone should buy them a dictionary.

"As Susan Hill (president of the National Women's Health Organization and owner of the two clinics that joined NOW in the lawsuit) said, '[w]e cannot allow anti-abortion extremists to take this decision as a signal to once again increase violent activity aimed at clinics and clinic staff.'"

Yeah, that's exactly how I read the opinion. Justice Breyer made it pretty clear that he thinks it's okay for me to go blow up abortion clinics.

"In the coming weeks, our attorneys will make available a FACE kit that local clinics and lawyers can use to enforce the FACE act in their communities."

This is great. I'm perfectly happy that NOW is helping their "constituents," as it were, to exercise their legal rights. It's just too bad that they take such a dim view of pro-lifers exercising theirs. But you know, it's not like the founding fathers intended Free Speech to apply to just any old nutcase.

"We must do whatever is necessary to protect doctors and patients, or our legal right to abortion will be a hollow shell."

Unless, you know, actual police do their actual jobs, and enforce actual legislation to prevent violence (whether or not in front of an abortion clinic). In which case NOW would just look like a bunch of hystrionic harpies.

"Joseph Scheidler, Randall Terry and other leaders of the self-described 'pro-life mafia' had vowed to stop abortion 'by any means necessary,' and the ensuing attacks included arson, bombings, violent blockades, death threats and even murder. By vacating the injunction on narrow, technical grounds, the Supreme Court sided today with thugs and bullies, not peaceful protesters."

Eh. First of all, I'd have more sympathy for you if you didn't devote your lives and careers to the violent destruction of defenseless children. Second, it really blows me away that NOW could actually believe that Stephen Breyer, of all people (not to mention Souter and Ginsburg), sides with thugs and bullies. Third, we've got some more of that curious language. The sentence starts out with a reference to specific people, and then segues into a person-less "the ensuing attacks..." Implying, of course, that Scheidler and Terry personally went around killing people. And that the Supreme Court has no problem with that.

Well, as I said, NOW has no interest in providing facts that contradict their worldview, so I guess I've no reason to act surprised.

Monday, February 27, 2006

The Official SobekPundit Blogger Interview: The Llamabutchers

Well it appears that the Official SobekPundit Blogger Interview has not yet driven me to the brink of utter despair, because I'm back again, and this time I'm joined by Steve and Robb-o, the Llamabutchers.

Robb-O: Yip!
Steve: Orgle-orgle!

Sobek: Uh-huh. Anyway, I figured that if anything will keep me from completely foreswearing the dark torment that is blogging, it's a couple of llamas hopped up on airplane glue.

Robb-O: That's what we're here for!
Steve: Anything for a pal. And for more airplane glue.

Sobek: Yes, well I must apologize. I confess I wasn't being completely forthright when I invited you here for an interview. It was actually a subtle plan to digitize you both, load you into my computerized nightmare world, and make you fight to the death.

Robb-O: Alas!

Steve: Alack!

Sobek: Right. So, here are your light-cycles. Go to it.

Robb-O: You'll never get us to fight each other! And why do I have to be the red guy?

Steve: Never! Orgle orgle!

Sobek: Steve, did I mention that I overheard Robb-O saying that Mr. Knightley is a more sympathetic protagonist than Mr. Darcy?

Steve: You monster!

Robb-O: Well he is!

Sobek: Ha ha ha!

Steve: You'll die for that!
Robb-O: Oh yeah? Well your appreciation of the Mozart's Don Giovanni is sub-par!

Steve: Villain! You have such a tin ear that you can't even tell the difference between Rachmaninoff and Shostakovich!
Robb-O: Cur!

Sobek: This is so much better than writing an actual interview.

Robb-O: Wait a minute, why are we fighting each other?
Steve: You're right. We should join forces to defeat Sobek. And, I can only presume, whatever evil fiend is controlling him.

Robb-O: Capital idea!
Steve: Quickly, to Master Control!

Sobek: What are you doing? Stop! It's time to use my greatest weapon: digital Bill!

Bill: Nnghaaaaaaaaah!

Robb-O: Huh. I didn't see that coming.

Steve: I did.

Robb-O: Shut up.

Bill: Nnghaaaaaaaaah!

Steve: Let's see, here. If digital Bill is anything like his human counterpart, his one weakness will be a kick in the crotch.


Robb-O: Yep, it worked.

Sobek: Okay, fine. I'll release you. You two have raised the geek levels of this blog to critical mass.

Steve: Orgle orgle!

Robb-O: Yip! Yip!

Sobek: Whatever. Just don't spit all over the floor on your way out.

Other SobekPundit Blogger Interviews:
John from WuzzaDem
Ace of Spades
Dave from Garfield Ridge
Oliver Willis
The Therapist
Protein Wisdom
Jack M.
Bohemian Conservative
Michelle Malkin
Jennifer from Demure Thoughts
Right Wing Sparkle
Six Meat Buffet

Next Week:
I hate you all for making me do more of these.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

SobekPundit for President! Part 2

As a follow-up to the acceptance speech I would give if I received the Democratic nomination for President, and in an effort to keep my grass-roots campaign momentum going, I hereby present the acceptance speech I would give if I received the Republican nod. And I'm honored to accept the nomination as Republican candidate and Your Next President(TM).

Enough Talk, It's Smashing Time

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for your support. I thank you for your trust, and I want to assure you all that, if elected, I will stay true to the core Republican principle that there is no problem so big that it can't be solved by breaking stuff.

Think about it. Does anyone honestly believe we're going to solve the current problems with Iran by talking to them? Well, anyone other than John Kerry (who is a douchebag)? And all our debates over social security, famine in Zambia, stem cell research, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind -- has talking about this stuff actually solved anything? No. That's why I say "Enough talk, it's smashing time."

Let me illustrate how easily this simple principle works. What's wrong with France? Absolutely nothing that a few well-placed tactical nuclear warheads can't solve. German inflation? Tomahawk strikes will take care of that right quick. A drunken Ted Kennedy's trying to get a college coed into his car? Hellfire missiles, baby. The situation in Sierra Leone? Ladies and gentlemen, I don't even know where Sierra Leone is, but I still know the answer.

I know a few professional crybabies out there will complain that I don't have Constitutional authority to, say, commit massive ground forces Burma just because they insist on being called Myanmar. To them I say, if you can find a Constitutional right to gay sex, I can find pretty much whatever authority I'll ever need. And then I'll have those crybabies deported to North Korea. Which I will then bomb.

So much for foreign policy. On to domestic issues. I know that many people are nervous that the Patriot Act might encroach too much on civil liberties. You know what? I don't care. I'm here to rule you plebes with an iron fist, not give a squirt of piss about your precious little civil liberties. If you've got a problem with that, I'll be more than happy to buy you a plane ticket to Bolivia. Which I will then bomb.

Our borders need to be secured in order to protect American citizens. I vow to increase manpower on our southern border by tripling the number of INS agents. I will make this economically feasible by only hiring illegal immigrants. Anyone who has a problem with that will be stuffed in a bathtub and floated to Cuba. Which I will then bomb.

Social security is an outdated, unconstitutional monstrosity. If elected, I promise to eliminate it completely. But as a compassionate conservative, I promise to provide for the needs of America's seniors. After I conquer Germany, I will send our old folks over there to pillage and plunder to their heart's content. I don't anticipate any objections to this, because most old people who are alert enough to even know where they are will be happy to trade some measley monthly check for a brand new BMW. Well, I might get some complaints from the Germans, but if I cared about them, I'd be running for President over there, not here.

On the topic of abortion: I don't really care one way or the other what the law on abortion is, personally (as a committed Republican, I firmly believe that the suffering of the innocent is good for the economy). Nevertheless, I vow to pack the Court with far-right-wing ideologues who will not only reverse Roe v. Wade, but will make it a capital offense to even think the phrase "keep your laws off of my body." Again, not because I care about abortion, but because the anquish of dirty, feminist hippy chicks keeps me warm at night. And because I'll put my laws wherever the hell I want, you stupid dyke.

I would elaborate on my policies and philosophy, but I think you get the idea. And if you don't, let's be honest: you're probably not going to get it through your thick skull just by listening to me discuss my plans for bombing Kyrgyzstan until they promise to get some freakin' vowels, or my plan to boost public school performance by bombing Syria.

I know that some people will hear this speech and decide that I'm not right for America, or that I'm too radical in my views, to ever get elected. To those people, I say that as long as Howard Dean is given a position of prominence in the Democrat party, I'm not terribly worried. Also, I plan on shipping those critics to Spain. Which I will then bomb.

Again, thank you for your support. But for now, I say "enough talk." It's smashing time.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

More on Me

There's a bit of a discussion of religion in the comments section to this post (including plenty of references to drugs, hookers, and Cthulu).

But how many of you knew that I invented bling?

"A crocodile-god, he was worshipped in cities that depended on water, such as the oasis city of Arsinoe (Crocodilopolis), where the reptiles were kept in pools and adorned with jewels."

I'd also like to point out that this link is riddled with errors. For example:

"Sobek is considered to be a cohort of Horus."

I think not, sweetheart. Horus was a cohort of Sobek, and don't you forget it. See that's the problem with archaeologists these days. They get a little bit on information and draw all kinds of inaccurate conclusions from it. Take for example the so-called "dual temple" at Kom Ombo. Supposedly we were both worshipped there, right? The truth is that I had this really awesome temple, hot priestesses in skimpy outfits, as much bling as you could squeeze into your pimp cup ... and along comes Horus with this sob story about how his temple got razed by the Lybians, and could he just crash at my place for a bit? Man, was I a sucker. Dude stops paying rent after like four months, totally gets into my fridge, and keeps inviting Amon and Khepri over for all-night keggers. Yeah, "dual temple" my scaly green butt.

What a chump.

The Official SobekPundit Position on the Developing Scandal Surrounding Dubai Ports Contracts

Eh, I don't care. It's not like I live near any ports.

But if you do, you can click the title to this post for some info.

That is all.

Time to Change Religions

O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao de Vegatal is a church that celebrates communion by drinking hoasca, a tea brewed from plants unique to Brazil, and which has powerful psychotropic qualities. It is a Schedule I narcotic, and illegal for all purposes in the United States.

The feds told the Centro Espirita to knock it off with the hoasca. O Centro Espirita told the feds to go jump in a lake. Then they sued the feds, asking the Court to tell the feds not to prosecute hoasca users.

According to a unanimous Supreme Court, O Centro Espirita is right.

I won't bore you with the legal details, I'll just note that I've suddenly discovered that some of my ancestors were Brazilian Indians, and in order to strengthen my kinship with them, I've decided to adopt their religious practices. Well, some of them, anyway. My blogging should reflect the new change in my lifestyle. Anyone who has a problem with that is welcome to come discuss the matter with me, in my home, over a nice cup of tea.

More on Abortion in South Dakota

The abortion ban passed the Senate, but the Senate added an amendment, so it's back to the House. Governor Rounds, who is pro-life, has not yet said whether he'll sign the bill, because he doesn't comment on legislation until it's in final form.

I saw an earlier story today predicting the Senate vote would be close, but it actually passed with a comfortable 23-12 margin. It will get through the House without any problems, because the only thing the Senate added was some language about the bill being consistent with the state's Constitution.

From a New York Times article, our old friend Kate Looby chimes in:

"'While they are making political maneuvers, we're trying to fight for the women of South Dakota,' Kate Looby, the state director of Planned Parenthood in South Dakota, said before the bill was passed."

Uh huh. How about "while shrill feminists are complaining that the will of the people doesn't align with that of seven judges who died decades ago, South Dakota is fighting for innocent babies in South Dakota." Yeah, I think that has a better ring to it. More from Looby:

"Ms. Looby said she had spent hundreds of hours meeting with lawmakers and others as a vote drew near. 'I hate to envision the day when the women of South Dakota are treated differently than the women elsewhere when it comes to safe and legal health care,' she said."

Forty million dead babies were unavailable for comment.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Two Thoughts on Abortion

First, screaming headlines today blared that the "newly reconstituted Supreme Court" is going to hear a case on the federal law banning partial birth abortions.

Actually, the story I linked runs the headline: "Justices tackle late-term abortion issue." Which is a little disingenuous, because the issue isn't about how late in the term the abortion is performed (and note that Harry Blackmun, in Roe v. Wade said straight out that a state could ban third trimester abortions); rather, it's about a specific method of performing abortions. And that method involves inducing labor, pulling the baby out of the womb until only the head remains in the woman's body, stabbing scissors into the baby's skull, and using a vaccuum to remove the brain and collapse the skull.

Somehow, Congress got the idea that the procedure is ethically problematic.

Well what's the harm, you might ask. After all, if the kid is going to die, what difference if he or she dies in a really, really horrible way? Congress was concerned about the danger of devaluing human life, and blurring the line between abortion and infanticide.

Well, is that really a realistic danger?

I don't know. Maybe we should ask the Dutch.

President's Day in Red Rock Canyon

This President's Day, I had a few options. I could either stay at home, reflecting upon the impact, dedication and visions of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, or I could take kidd-o hiking in Red Rock canyon.

Yeah, it wasn't all that difficult a decision.

The drive in was auspicious. The clouds parted just enough to send glorious rays of light down on my destination. I'm still getting the hang of my digital camera, so this was the sixth or seventh shot I took, and the first one to actually show any definition in the clouds.

The mountain we climbed is a tangled, jumbled mess that looks like God, when he finished creating the earth, dropped a bunch of extra materials in an unceremonious heap in southern Nevada. Here you can see kidd-o carefully picking his way charging like a madman up the side of the mountain, scarcely pausing to notice the rainbow-colored stones all around him.

You have no idea how naturally gifted this kid is at climbing rocks. I've been telling his mother for three years now that he's part monkey, and I'm more convinced than ever. He's absolutely fearless (not to mention, cute as a button), and instinctively knows how to pick out a suitable route, how to distribute his weight, and how to use his legs properly (the trick with climbing is to use your arms for grip and balance, and your legs to move your body up a wall).

One tricky problem is that when he zoomed through narrow little holes like this one -- that were too small for me to negotiate -- I had to find some way around just to keep up with him.

As you can see, the mountain is full of little nooks and crannies that I could spend weeks, even months, exploring.

The rocks we climbed were colored like rainbows, but right next to us was a huge mound of impossibly red rocks (hence the name, of course). The whole place was so beautiful.

Another shot, from higher up the mountain.

Right about this time, it got too hard for me to take pictures and stay close enough to kidd-o, so I put the camera away. I had only planned on climbing a short distance, and then heading back down to look for more easy routes. But once kidd-o got going, he kept going, and we came pretty close to the top before he finally decided to turn around. I look forward to going back when we have more time. Nevada is the most beautiful place, and I'm glad kidd-o and I have years to spend discovering it together.

Question for the Global Warming Doomsdayers

Why on Earth is it snowing in friggin' Las Vegas? The pic is from last Sunday, actually. And none of it stuck, but still.

I blame Bush for all that white crap making my mountains look pretty.

Sunday, February 19, 2006

New Osama Tape

He vows never to be taken alive.

Hey, I think we can all agree on that.

It also looks like Osama has been reading Ted Kennedy's notes again:

"The jihad is continuing with strength, for Allah be all the credit, despite all the barbarity, the repressive steps taken by the American Army and its agents, to the extent that there is no longer any mentionable difference between this criminality and the criminality of Saddam" (emphasis mine).

I'll leave you to ponder whether Teddy will be at all embarrassed that Osama's paraphrasing him pretty closely, and instead point out that for all his bluster, bin Laden is sending cassette tapes from a friggin' cave, while George W. Bush sleeps in the White House. So, you know, there's that to consider.

More from Stop the ACLU.

Saturday, February 18, 2006

The Official SobekPundit Blogger Interview: Six Meat Buffet

Welcome to yet another SobekPundit Blogger Interview, a more-or-less regular feature that I use to while away the dreary hours of my seemingly interminable existence. This week I've asked Preston Taylor Holmes of Six Meat Buffet to join me, and he kindly accepted. And by "accepted" I mean "screamed at the top of his lungs because Dave from Garfield Ridge can't lord it over him anymore." Preston is, among other things, an intrepid reporter who brought us penetrating exposes of water seeking revenge on humanity and a threatened attack on the New York subway system. He also sponsored the innovative "Stop the Vote" program. He also stepped up the plate last Ramahanakwanzmas with his 12 Days of Christmas gift ideas for Liberals (see especially here, here and here). So I think we can all agree that this is a special treat.

Sobek: Welcome, Mr. Meat Buffet.

Preston: Please, call me Preston.

Sobek: Sure thing. Look, I don't mean to offend you or anything, but you look terrible. Are you okay?

Preston: Mouth's dry. Can I have some water?

Sobek: Sure. What happened to you?

Preston: Feel like somebody's been beating me with a stick for about eight years.

Sobek: I know the feeling; it was called the Clinton Administration. What's the last thing you remember?

Preston: Just some horrible dream about smothering. Gah!

Sobek: What is it?

Preston: Ahhh!

Sobek: What's going on? Are you okay?


Sobek: Holy crap!!!

Over there!

Preston: Not again...

Come get some of this, pendejo!

Collect magazines from everybody. We can't have any firing in there!

What are we supposed to use, man, harsh language?


You want some a this? How 'bout you? I got some for you, too!


Where's Apone? Where's Dietrich?

Drake is down!

He's gone! Forget it, he's gone!

Uh, I want you to lay down a suppressing fire ...

Sobek: ...

Preston: ...

Sobek: ...

Preston: ...

Sobek: So, as I was saying, a lot like the Clinton administration.

Preston: Pretty much, yeah.

Other SobekPundit Blogger Interviews:
John from WuzzaDem
Ace of Spades
Dave from Garfield Ridge
Oliver Willis
The Therapist
Protein Wisdom
Jack M.
Bohemian Conservative
Michelle Malkin
Jennifer from Demure Thoughts
Right Wing Sparkle

Next Week:
Llama Butchers