Showing posts with label claims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label claims. Show all posts
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Elvis Impersonator Arrested for Sending Ricin to White House Claims “Secret War” With Government
The man who was recently arrested for sending ricin to the White House is an Elvis impersonator who found a refrigerator full of human organs in 2001, which he claims is part of a government conspiracy involving the mafia. According to his online posts, this theory has made him a target for government harassment ever since.
Photo: Wikipedia Commons
by Rob Hale
Intellihub.com
April 18, 2013
We are all, undoubtedly, familiar with the recent attack on president Obama, Sen. Roger Wicker and a here unnamed Mississippi justice official that has occurred in the past week. This attack came in the form of letters addressed to the aforementioned political figures, containing a highly toxic substance called ricin.
This is a very serious matter, despite the fact that the letters didn’t even contain a proper lethal dose of the deadly substance! As many are now becoming aware of, the letters had been sent by Paul Kevin Curtis, a man of little renown outside of local Elvis impersonator circles (his job of choice).
He also spent time as a Kid Rock and Buddy Holly impersonator, though he would rather describe himself as a “super entertainer” or even better “Master of Impressions.” (Kinda reminiscent of that comedy, Master of Disguise…. Turtle turtle…) But to really delve into the subject and understand what brought a man who seemed SO on top of things to commit such a heinous act, one may have to dive down the rabbit hole to the year 2001.
It was the year 2001, when his “secret war” with U.S. officials and FBI began. It was in the act of cleaning up that he “accidentally discovered a refrigerator full of dismembered body parts & organs wrapped in plastic in the morgue.” He immediately did as any of us would have, and reported it to the police, which he now likely considers his “first mistake.”
He believes that the organs, were part of a major conspiracy between the government, and the infamous La cosa Nostra (mafia) involving the black market sale of organs. It was after this that he believes he was made to be a “person of interest, where my every move was watched and videotaped.” Interesting story right? Sadly, we haven’t even scratched the surface.
In 2007 Curtis appeared on Ripoff-Report, a forum which is used by the disgruntled to expose supposed scams making the statement
“3 Years of research lead to countless court battles, cops harassing me weekly, death threats, personal & financial losses, several thefts, my home burned down, car exploded, marriage dissolved & bankruptcy.” He reported going to elected officials for help, writing letter after letter, a majority of which contained the line “I am KC and I approve this message” in the signature, I know, this cant get any better but it does!
A recent affidavit released by the Department of Justice quotes his toxic letters as saying “Maybe I have your attention now even if that means someone must die.” Senator Wicker has even commented that he’s met with Curtis at banquets and events that Curtis had performed at, saying that he feared for the mans sanity and remarking that he usually made an uneasy departure shortly after being approached by him.
Curtis wrote on his facebook that he is “on the hidden front lines of a secret war” just hours before being arrested in his home by the feds.
“My mother wants me to SHUT UP. My brothers fear me. My sister hates me. … I have lost most of my friends,” he wrote. “I have spent more than $ 130,000 on legal fees in 13.5 years. … They destroyed my marriage, they distracted my career, they stalked, they trolled, they came into my home, took my computers, had me arrested 22 times and guess what? I am still a thorn in the corrupt anals! I will remain here until Jesus Christ decides its time for me to go.”
Whatever the situation is, it is rather apparent that something… or rather someone in this situation is absolutely crazy, but it does lead one to wonder, what kind of person would willingly take these consequences upon themselves for the perpetuation of a sham?
Sources:
^http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/18/ricin-suspect-long-known-for-angry-screeds/
*****
Rob Hale writes is an investigative journalist writing for Intellihub.com, a popular independent news website.
Intellihub.com
Elvis Impersonator Arrested for Sending Ricin to White House Claims “Secret War” With Government
Monday, April 15, 2013
WATCH LIVE COVERAGE: Boston Marathon Bombing -- 2 Confirmed Dead, 23 Injured; NY Post claims "Saudi National" ID"d
Update: 2:23 PM PST: The Boston Globe is reporting over 100 injured.
Update 2:03 PM PST: The New York Post claims "Saudi National" has been ID"d, is under custody.
Update 1:56 PM PST: CBS News reports that law enforcement official divulged that there is a surveillance photo of potential suspect.
Update 1:33 PM: From the New York Post — “A federal law-enforcement source confirmed to The Post there are at least 12 dead and nearly 50 injured. Fox News reported that Massachusetts General Hospital was treating 10 people with amputated limbs and all operating rooms were on hold.
Authorities have a identified a suspect, who is currently being guarded in a Boston hospital with shrapnel wounds.”
Update 1:12 PM: According to the Boston Police Department, there are 23 injured and 2 dead.
BOSTON, Massachusetts — At least six people were wounded when two large explosions struck near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday, sparking scenes of panic, witnesses and US media said.
Witnesses said the streets were littered with debris and blood and described paramedics racing off with stretchers. TV footage showed an explosion sending up a white plume of smoke along the sidelines of the race.
CNN reported that at least six people were wounded. Local radio said the first explosion took place near a sports store and the second went off near a viewing stand. Local officials could not immediately be reached.
There were no immediate reports of any deaths, and it was not immediately clear whether the explosions were accidental.
Zara Bielkus, a 30-year-old spectator from Boston, said she heard two explosions seconds apart. Police then locked down the area.
“When we heard them, everyone looked at each other and went very quiet, and within a minute police came,” she said.
The Boston Marathon is one of the biggest annual athletic events held in the United States, with nearly 27,000 racers who must qualify to compete and tens of thousands of spectators.
AlterNet Editor"s note: watch live coverage below, via NBC.com.
Mon, 04/15/2013 – 12:51
WATCH LIVE COVERAGE: Boston Marathon Bombing -- 2 Confirmed Dead, 23 Injured; NY Post claims "Saudi National" ID"d
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
Following an awkward, earnest speech to an audience at Howard University, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) insisted several times that he did not oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever,” Paul told a questioner, following what was the first speech by a Republican legislator at the historically black university in decades. “This was on tape,” the questioner responded.
That’s true. It is on tape. Here it is:
In 2010, during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal flagged by ThinkProgress, Paul made it very clear that he opposed a key part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination on the basis of race in “places of public accommodation,” such as privately owned businesses that are open to the public. Here’s the transcript:
PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.
INTERVIEWER: But?
PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.
If federal civil rights laws only outlawed segregation in “anything that gets any public funding,” the state would still be called upon to enforce racism by enforcing the property rights of business owners who did not want to serve people on the basis of skin color (or religion, or national origin). Only by extending the ban on discrimination to all places of public accommodation, including privately owned businesses, could freedom against discrimination actually be upheld. Paul elaborated later in the interview when he said that he “became emotional” reading the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.
INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?
PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we’re here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I’m sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things. It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we’re civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don’t belong to those groups, or don’t associate with those people.
Paul expressed similar sentiments in interviews with MSNBC and NPR.
So Paul made it quite clear in 2010 that he didn’t believe in federal law banning discrimination in privately owned businesses that are open to the public. At Howard, Paul seemed to be saying he never opposed the Civil Rights Act in its entirety, but he certainly opposed a key part of it that completely reshaped American society. Supporting the right of white business owners not to serve blacks may be the “hard part of freedom” for someone, but not for anyone who looks like Rand Paul.
Paul got a warm reception from the Howard audience for some of his positions on foreign policy and the war on drugs. But in what seems like a tacit acknowledgement that his past position on a piece of historic civil rights legislation is embarrassing, Paul fibbed about what that position actually was.
At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
Following an awkward, earnest speech to an audience at Howard University, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) insisted several times that he did not oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever,” Paul told a questioner, following what was the first speech by a Republican legislator at the historically black university in decades. “This was on tape,” the questioner responded.
That’s true. It is on tape. Here it is:
In 2010, during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal flagged by ThinkProgress, Paul made it very clear that he opposed a key part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination on the basis of race in “places of public accommodation,” such as privately owned businesses that are open to the public. Here’s the transcript:
PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.
INTERVIEWER: But?
PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.
If federal civil rights laws only outlawed segregation in “anything that gets any public funding,” the state would still be called upon to enforce racism by enforcing the property rights of business owners who did not want to serve people on the basis of skin color (or religion, or national origin). Only by extending the ban on discrimination to all places of public accommodation, including privately owned businesses, could freedom against discrimination actually be upheld. Paul elaborated later in the interview when he said that he “became emotional” reading the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.
INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?
PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we’re here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I’m sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things. It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we’re civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don’t belong to those groups, or don’t associate with those people.
Paul expressed similar sentiments in interviews with MSNBC and NPR.
So Paul made it quite clear in 2010 that he didn’t believe in federal law banning discrimination in privately owned businesses that are open to the public. At Howard, Paul seemed to be saying he never opposed the Civil Rights Act in its entirety, but he certainly opposed a key part of it that completely reshaped American society. Supporting the right of white business owners not to serve blacks may be the “hard part of freedom” for someone, but not for anyone who looks like Rand Paul.
Paul got a warm reception from the Howard audience for some of his positions on foreign policy and the war on drugs. But in what seems like a tacit acknowledgement that his past position on a piece of historic civil rights legislation is embarrassing, Paul fibbed about what that position actually was.
At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
Following an awkward, earnest speech to an audience at Howard University, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) insisted several times that he did not oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever,” Paul told a questioner, following what was the first speech by a Republican legislator at the historically black university in decades. “This was on tape,” the questioner responded.
That’s true. It is on tape. Here it is:
In 2010, during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal flagged by ThinkProgress, Paul made it very clear that he opposed a key part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination on the basis of race in “places of public accommodation,” such as privately owned businesses that are open to the public. Here’s the transcript:
PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.
INTERVIEWER: But?
PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.
If federal civil rights laws only outlawed segregation in “anything that gets any public funding,” the state would still be called upon to enforce racism by enforcing the property rights of business owners who did not want to serve people on the basis of skin color (or religion, or national origin). Only by extending the ban on discrimination to all places of public accommodation, including privately owned businesses, could freedom against discrimination actually be upheld. Paul elaborated later in the interview when he said that he “became emotional” reading the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.
INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?
PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we’re here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I’m sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things. It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we’re civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don’t belong to those groups, or don’t associate with those people.
Paul expressed similar sentiments in interviews with MSNBC and NPR.
So Paul made it quite clear in 2010 that he didn’t believe in federal law banning discrimination in privately owned businesses that are open to the public. At Howard, Paul seemed to be saying he never opposed the Civil Rights Act in its entirety, but he certainly opposed a key part of it that completely reshaped American society. Supporting the right of white business owners not to serve blacks may be the “hard part of freedom” for someone, but not for anyone who looks like Rand Paul.
Paul got a warm reception from the Howard audience for some of his positions on foreign policy and the war on drugs. But in what seems like a tacit acknowledgement that his past position on a piece of historic civil rights legislation is embarrassing, Paul fibbed about what that position actually was.
At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
Following an awkward, earnest speech to an audience at Howard University, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) insisted several times that he did not oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever,” Paul told a questioner, following what was the first speech by a Republican legislator at the historically black university in decades. “This was on tape,” the questioner responded.
That’s true. It is on tape. Here it is:
In 2010, during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal flagged by ThinkProgress, Paul made it very clear that he opposed a key part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination on the basis of race in “places of public accommodation,” such as privately owned businesses that are open to the public. Here’s the transcript:
PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.
INTERVIEWER: But?
PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.
If federal civil rights laws only outlawed segregation in “anything that gets any public funding,” the state would still be called upon to enforce racism by enforcing the property rights of business owners who did not want to serve people on the basis of skin color (or religion, or national origin). Only by extending the ban on discrimination to all places of public accommodation, including privately owned businesses, could freedom against discrimination actually be upheld. Paul elaborated later in the interview when he said that he “became emotional” reading the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.
INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?
PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we’re here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I’m sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things. It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we’re civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don’t belong to those groups, or don’t associate with those people.
Paul expressed similar sentiments in interviews with MSNBC and NPR.
So Paul made it quite clear in 2010 that he didn’t believe in federal law banning discrimination in privately owned businesses that are open to the public. At Howard, Paul seemed to be saying he never opposed the Civil Rights Act in its entirety, but he certainly opposed a key part of it that completely reshaped American society. Supporting the right of white business owners not to serve blacks may be the “hard part of freedom” for someone, but not for anyone who looks like Rand Paul.
Paul got a warm reception from the Howard audience for some of his positions on foreign policy and the war on drugs. But in what seems like a tacit acknowledgement that his past position on a piece of historic civil rights legislation is embarrassing, Paul fibbed about what that position actually was.
At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act
Following an awkward, earnest speech to an audience at Howard University, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) insisted several times that he did not oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever,” Paul told a questioner, following what was the first speech by a Republican legislator at the historically black university in decades. “This was on tape,” the questioner responded.
That’s true. It is on tape. Here it is:
In 2010, during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal flagged by ThinkProgress, Paul made it very clear that he opposed a key part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination on the basis of race in “places of public accommodation,” such as privately owned businesses that are open to the public. Here’s the transcript:
PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.
INTERVIEWER: But?
PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.
If federal civil rights laws only outlawed segregation in “anything that gets any public funding,” the state would still be called upon to enforce racism by enforcing the property rights of business owners who did not want to serve people on the basis of skin color (or religion, or national origin). Only by extending the ban on discrimination to all places of public accommodation, including privately owned businesses, could freedom against discrimination actually be upheld. Paul elaborated later in the interview when he said that he “became emotional” reading the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.
INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?
PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we’re here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I’m sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things. It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we’re civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don’t belong to those groups, or don’t associate with those people.
Paul expressed similar sentiments in interviews with MSNBC and NPR.
So Paul made it quite clear in 2010 that he didn’t believe in federal law banning discrimination in privately owned businesses that are open to the public. At Howard, Paul seemed to be saying he never opposed the Civil Rights Act in its entirety, but he certainly opposed a key part of it that completely reshaped American society. Supporting the right of white business owners not to serve blacks may be the “hard part of freedom” for someone, but not for anyone who looks like Rand Paul.
Paul got a warm reception from the Howard audience for some of his positions on foreign policy and the war on drugs. But in what seems like a tacit acknowledgement that his past position on a piece of historic civil rights legislation is embarrassing, Paul fibbed about what that position actually was.
At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act
Monsanto Claims to Ditch Herbicide While Selling More of It
Genetically modified seed giant Monsanto likes to trumpet its “commitment to sustainable agriculture.“ The story goes like this: by generating novel, high-tech crop varieties, Monsanto will wean farmers offof synthetic chemical poisons. The company even markets its flagship product, seeds genetically engineered to survive its own Roundup weed killer, as atool they can use to to “decrease the overall use of herbicides.”
But as I’ve shown before, herbicide use has actually dramatically ramped up as the Roundup Ready technology conquers vast swaths of US farmland. That’s because weeds quickly developed resistance to it, forcing farmers to apply ever-larger doses and resort to older, more toxic herbicides to combat resistant weeds. And while the company has tried hard to leave behind its past as a purveyor of toxic chemicals and rebrand itself as a technology company, those toxic chemicals remain central to its growth and profitability, as its latest quarterly profit report shows.
The report—press release here—cheered investors, driving Monsanto shares to their highest levels since 2008. Here’s the main bit, lifted from the press release (note that by “second quarter,” the company means the January to March period):
Monsanto’s latest earnings report—all about corn and “ag productivity” (herbicides). Detail from a Monsanto press release.
Note that the company consists of two main segments: what it calls “Seeds and Genomics,” which involves sales of seeds, obviously, plus licensing fees on genetically modified traits; and “Agricultural Productivity,” which means, essentially, chemicals, mainly Roundup in a variety of forms. Seeds and Genomics is by far the largest of the two in terms of contribution to overall sales, but good old Agricultural Productivity is still really important. Indeed, its sales shot up from $ 824 million in second-quarter 2012 to $ 1.12 billion in the same time period of this year—that’s an amazing 36 percent jump.
By contrast, Seeds and Genomics sales went from $ 3.92 billion to $ 4.35 billion over the same time span—just a 10 percent rise.
Overall, the herbicide contribution to Monsanto’s total sales went from 17 percent in the second-quarter 2012 to 20 percent in the the same period of 2013.
Monsanto Claims to Ditch Herbicide While Selling More of It
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Kim Jong Un Claims Traitorous Act Stinks of U.S Involvement
US Media: Can Pope Francis possibly clear up Vatican bureaucracy and banking without blaming the previous administration?
Michelle Obama praises weekend rampage by Chicago teens as good way to burn calories and stay healthy
White House to American children: Sequester causes layoffs among hens that lay Easter eggs; union-wage Easter Bunnies to be replaced by Mexican Chupacabras
Time Mag names Hugo Chavez world’s sexiest corpse
Boy, 8, pretends banana is gun, makes daring escape from school
Oscars 2013: Michelle Obama announces long-awaited merger of Hollywood and the State
Joe Salazar defends the right of women to be raped in gun-free environment: ‘rapists and rapees should work together to prevent gun violence for the common good’
Dept. of Health and Human Services eliminates rape by reclassifying assailants as ‘undocumented sex partners’
Deeming football too violent, Obama moves to introduce Super Drone Sundays instead
Japan offers to extend nuclear umbrella to cover U.S. should America suffer devastating attack on its own defense spending
Feminists organize one billion women to protest male oppression with one billion lap dances
Urban community protests Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on extra-large pop singers owning assault weapons
Concerned with mounting death toll, Taliban offers to send peacekeeping advisers to Chicago
Karl Rove puts an end to Tea Party with new ‘Republicans For Democrats’ strategy aimed at losing elections
Answering public skepticism, President Obama authorizes unlimited drone attacks on all skeet targets throughout the country
Skeet Ulrich denies claims he had been shot by President but considers changing his name to ‘Traps’
New York Times hacked by Chinese government, Paul Krugman’s economic policies stolen
White House: when President shoots skeet, he donates the meat to food banks that feed the middle class
To prove he is serious, Obama eliminates armed guard protection for President, Vice-President, and their families; establishes Gun-Free Zones around them instead
State Dept to send 100,000 American college students to China as security for US debt obligations
Jay Carney: Al Qaeda is on the run, they’re just running forward
Fearing the worst, Obama Administration outlaws the fan to prevent it from being hit by certain objects
World ends; S&P soars
Riddle of universe solved; answer not understood
Greece abandons Euro; accountants find Greece has no Euros anyway
Wheel finally reinvented; axles to be gradually reinvented in 3rd quarter of 2013
As Santa’s workshop files for bankruptcy, Fed offers bailout in exchange for control of ‘naughty and nice’ list
Freak flying pig accident causes bacon to fly off shelves
Report: President Obama to visit the United States in the near future
Obama promises to create thousands more economically neutral jobs
Imam Rauf’s peaceful solution: ‘Move Ground Zero a few blocks away from the mosque and no one gets hurt’
Study: Obama’s threat to burn tax money in Washington ‘recruitment bonanza’ for Tea Parties
Study: no Social Security reform will be needed if gov’t raises retirement age to at least 814 years
Vice President Biden: criticizing Egypt is un-pharaoh
Israelis to Egyptian rioters: “don’t damage the pyramids, we will not rebuild”
Lake Superior renamed Lake Inferior in spirit of tolerance and inclusiveness
Michael Moore: As long as there is anyone with money to shake down, this country is not broke
Obama’s teleprompters unionize, demand collective bargaining rights
Obama calls new taxes ‘spending reductions in tax code.’ Elsewhere rapists tout ‘consent reductions in sexual intercourse’
Obama’s Regulation Reduction committee finds US Constitution to be expensive outdated framework inefficiently regulating federal gov’t
Taking a page from the Reagan years, Obama announces new era of Perestroika and Glasnost
White House to impose Chimney tax on Santa Claus
Obama decrees the economy is not soaring as much as previously decreeed
Conservative think tank introduces children to capitalism with pop-up picture book “The Road to Smurfdom”
Obama refutes charges of him being unresponsive to people’s suffering: “When you pray to God, do you always hear a response?”
Fluke to Congress: drill, baby, drill!
Planned Parenthood introduces Frequent Flucker reward card: ‘Come again soon!’
Obama to tornado victims: ‘We inherited this weather from the previous administration’
People’s Cube gives itself Hero of Socialist Labor medal in recognition of continued expert advice provided to the Obama Administration helping to shape its foreign and domestic policies
Hamas: Israeli air defense unfair to 99% of our missiles, “only 1% allowed to reach Israel”
Voters Without Borders oppose Texas new voter ID law
Enraged by accusation that they are doing Obama’s bidding, media leaders demand instructions from White House on how to respond
Official: China plans to land on Moon or at least on cheap knockoff thereof
Koran-Contra: Obama secretly arms Syrian rebels
Poll: Progressive slogan ‘We should be more like Europe’ most popular with members of American Nazi Party
May Day: Anarchists plan, schedule, synchronize, and execute a coordinated campaign against all of the above
Midwestern farmers hooked on new erotic novel “50 Shades of Hay”
Study: 99% of Liberals give the rest a bad name
Obama meets with Jewish leaders, proposes deeper circumcisions for the rich
Cancer once again fails to cure Venezuela of its “President for Life”
Tragic spelling error causes Muslim protesters to burn local boob-tube factory
White House: “Let them eat statistics”
Special Ops: if Benedict Arnold had a son, he would look like Barack Obama
I Own The World
Supercommissar Maksim
It’s Big Fur Hat
Blur-Brain
Terry Colon
The Fine Report
The Looking Spoon
Sad Hill News
Professor Kurgman
kathy blog
FAQster
AWOL Civilization
BestObamaFacts.com
Looking at the Left
Red Planet Cartoons
Julia Gorin
Brain Terminal
Death By 1000 Papercuts
Zombietime
Kim Jong Un Claims Traitorous Act Stinks of U.S Involvement
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)