Starbucks Put through the Grinder (Open Thread)

On Tuesday, the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, published an open letter attempting to explain his company’s latest approach to the “open carry” issue.  The company finds itself in an awkward position.  Pro-open-carry individuals have staged “Starbucks Appreciation Days” at some Starbucks locations.  During these events, participants openly carried their guns.  In response, anti-gun activists have staged anti-open-carry events and put pressure on Starbucks, seeking to have the company ban guns from their stores.  These competing events have positioned the company in the middle of a political firestorm.  Thus, Schultz’s letter, in which he states the company’s newest approach. 

Previously, Starbucks sensibly allowed state and local laws to dictate whether or not people could openly carry weapons into their stores.  If the store was in an “open-carry” state, then guns were allowed on Starbucks premises; if not in an open-carry state, then guns were not allowed to be openly carried into their stores.  The new policy, from Schultz’s letter:

… I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas. …

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

Fair enough, although Schultz’s implication that those who carry weapons can’t be safely confronted is insulting to law-abiding citizens, and he also seems to have forgotten to ask “those who champion” gun control to “please respect that Starbucks” will continue to allow gun-owning customers to respectfully decline his respectful request that they leave their guns at home.

Again, in my opinion, businesses have, and should always have, the right to make rules about whatever goes on in their establishments. That said, they must then live with the consequences of their decisions.

If gun-control advocates boycott businesses because they allow guns, so be it.   If gun-owners boycott businesses because they ban guns, so be it. That’s the way capitalism works.

You take your lumps.

Schultz is trying to avoid losing customers on either side of this explosive issue, which is understandable.  He’s been put in a hard place by activists from both sides.  It’s his problem to deal with.  He makes millions of dollars a year, running a billion-dollar company, because he has to make these hard choices.   One Forbes story seems to say that perhaps his letter wasn’t such a great solution:

Unfortunately, the road to hell is paved with good intentions: while attempting to clarify Starbucks’ position, Schultz’s open letter unintentionally sows confusion …

Simply put: Yesterday, guns were tolerated in Starbucks stores. Today, guns are still tolerated in Starbucks stores – with a splash of “grudgingly”. A distinction tantamount to explaining the difference between an Americano and a Cappuccino to someone who thinks in terms of “coffee with milk.” …

The difference between a good marketer and a great marketer: knowing when to keep your head down and not stand out from the competition.

Better to have said nothing.  Interestingly enough, people on both sides of the issue see the decision to continue to allow guns in Starbucks stores, if only “grudgingly”, as a victory for their side.  See here for an example of the pro-gun-control viewpoint and here for an example of the pro-Second-Amendment viewpoint.

It’s indisputable that We the People have the unalienable right to keep and bear arms.  It’s our constitutional right, according to the Second Amendment, as confirmed by numerous court decisions and local and state laws.  Here’s my problem with Schultz’s decision, which stigmatizes those who merely exercise a God-given, constitutional right:

What other rights could next be infringed upon by businesses simply because some people feel not “comfortable” or not “relaxed” or find it “unsettling” or “upsetting” when they observe a fellow citizen exercising them?

By infringed upon, I mean being singled out and issued a very public but “respectful request” to “respect [a] request” to cease and desist exercising said right in that company’s establishments.

As stated before, any business has a right to make its own rules and let the chips fall where they may.  What follows is a simple thought exercise.

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, if Burqa-wearing women are sitting at the next table. (Or even Burqa-wearing men.)  Would Schultz respectfully request customers to not wear Burqas (or Catholic school uniforms or yarmulkes or Sikh turbans) into his stores?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, if cross-dressing men are sitting at the next table.  Would Schultz respectfully request customers to not cross-dress when patronizing his stores?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, if someone sitting at the next table is reading “Mein Kampf” or “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” or “Dreams from my Father”.  Would Schultz respectfully request customers to not read books in his stores?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, if someone is watching Miley Cyrus twerking with Robin Thicke or Beyonce shaking her ample booty on an iPad?  Would Schultz respectfully request customers to not openly carry electronic devices into his stores?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, if Navy SEALS or cops or SWAT team members are seated at the next table.  Would Schultz respectfully request members of the military or police officers to not wear their identifying badges or uniforms into his stores?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, if Katie Couric or Matt Drudge or James O’Keefe is seated nearby, with a video camera recording the scene.  Would Schultz respectfully request members of the media to stay out of his stores?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, because every so often KKK members, La Raza members, Tea Partiers, or Planned Parenthood activists meet at Starbucks to discuss their various points of view.  Would Schultz respectfully request all such groups to meet elsewhere?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, if most of the tables in the establishment are occupied by people who are celebrating the marriage of two friends who happen to be lesbians.  Would Schultz respectfully request them to take their celebrations elsewhere?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, if two men seated nearby are engaging in public displays of affection with each other?   Would Schultz respectfully request the men to cease and desist or take their business elsewhere?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, that a black person is seated nearby.  Would Schultz respectfully request that the black person (or person of any other color) leave his establishment?

You see, it’s a slippery slope when a business tries to respectfully request people to check their rights at the door.  The business may have the right to do so, but obviously they will pay the price for their decisions, when people take their business elsewhere.

What is the next group that Schultz will try to appease?  Bullies are bullies are bullies.  Which group deserves to be accommodated–bullies or citizens freely exercising their God-given, constitutional rights?  Who should stay and who should go?

By being offended, or merely unsettled, because someone else exercises his or her constitutional rights, do I have a right to expect a company to infringe upon that person’s rights so that I can feel better?  What narcissism!

Constitutional rights are RIGHTS and shall not be infringed upon.  Mr. Schultz cannot please everyone, obviously.

If his goal is to make all of his customers feel relaxed and comfortable and help them to avoid any situation they might find unsettling and upsetting, then he is on a fool’s errand.  Schultz needs to choose up sides, and be open about it, not wishy washy.  That’s a fact.

Some people will never be appeased until everyone else submits to their rules and their point of view. Such people despise individual freedom, above all else. In their philosophy, it’s their way or the highway.

Schultz was originally on the right track, but he let himself get derailed by progressive bullies.  Now it will be interesting to see what effect his decision has on the Starbucks bottom line.


98 responses to “Starbucks Put through the Grinder (Open Thread)

  1. New open thread.

  2. Rosemary Woodhouse

    Bullies indeed. A lot of his clientele is left leaning. The hippie types prefer small local coffee shops.

  3. Rosemary Woodhouse

    And am very happily surprised that Boehner is going to fight to overturn O-care!

  4. Is anyone watching the hearings on C-Span 3? 🙂


      Mr. Woods and Mrs. Smith are testifying now. Parents of two of the deceased. TY for the tip. I missed that this was on.

      • Mr. Woods asked the pResident and this committee:

        “If the president’s child was in Benghazi, would the rescue attempt been more aggressive?” (I may not have had that word for word, but it’s the gist and it’s WONDERFUL.)

        IF Obama had a son in Benghazi …

        He also asked that Gen. Ham be made to testify PUBLICLY and we get the answer to whether or not he was relieved of duty by an inferior officer because he would not respect the order, EARLY ON, to stand down. Mr. Woods says an informant told him that if they had acted as soon as Stevens requested help, ALL LIVES might have been saved.

        • Drudge has link showing all dems walked out, or almost all when the parents testified.

          • h/t sundance at Conservative Treehouse:
            “The following House Committee Members walked out:

            • Carolyn Maloney
            • Danny Davis
            • Eleanor Holmes Norton
            • Gerald E. Connolly
            • Jim Cooper
            • John Tierney
            • Mark Pocan
            • Matt Cartwright
            • Michelle Lujan Grisham
            • Peter Welch
            • Stephen Lynch
            • Steven Horsford
            • Tammy Duckworth
            • Tony Cardenas
            • William Lacy Clay

            Only two Democrats remained: Elijah Cummings and Jackie Speier”

            Those two are the only ones I saw, so they were the only DemoncRATS remaining. I assume Cummings had to stay since he’s co-chairman. Duckworth left! From Wikipedia: “An Iraq War veteran, Duckworth served as a U.S. Army helicopter pilot and suffered severe combat wounds, losing both of her legs and damaging her right arm. She was the first female double amputee from the war.”

            Hypocrite. Helicopter pilots could have been heroes that night in Benghazi, had they not been told to stand down. Oh, correction. Mullen plays games. If he heretofore said there was no “stand down” order, he’s managed to try to avoid perjury by NOW saying they were told to “hold in place.” See the diff? I don’t. And I’m sick and tired of the people in this administration, beginning at the top with Barry, who pretend as if they don’t know the meaning of ordinary English words and instead try to cutely invent their own definitions of common English words.

            I guess Clay and Norton just don’t care about white people. (Not familiar with the others; maybe more are black.)

            Excellent comment by benzy at CT, who wondered what the reaction would have been if Republicans had walked out of a hearing where Trayvon Martin’s mother was speaking.

      • Mrs. Smith said that Hillary, Obama, Biden, Rice ALL LIED to her and told her at her son’s casket that he died on account of a “video”–an outright LIE.

        “I don’t trust my government anymore, because they lie to me,” said Mrs. Smith.

        • Cummings speechifies rather than ask the parents questions. I wonder why? Talking about the other deceased persons instead of allowing Smith and Woods to speak.

        • Trey Gowdy: “I am asked about Benghazi, and in fact, your sons, more than any other” topic. Their sons are not forgotten.

        • Rosemary Woodhouse

          Brava, Mrs. Smith. You are not alone. Neither do we, and we shall remember and honor your son. Someday, HOPEFULLY, when history books are written (unless God sees it fit to call it a day) the truth will be told and your son will be viewed, rightfully, as a hero.

          • btw, when I was watching that hearing, it went “kaput” in mid-sentence. Did anybody else see the end of it? I tried to find a new link, but couldn’t. CSPAN must have dropped coverage.

    • Did anything important come out of the first panel? Wish I’d have realized this was on. Apparently what I thought I noticed was true: lots of “empty seats” at that hearing. I’m guessing that the DemoncRATS didn’t have the guts to face the parents.

      “Independent” investigation and report, huh? Mullen gives a “heads up” to Hillary about how lame Lamb’s testimony was.

      Here’s a story that summarizes some of what was said today:

      • From a statement by Rep. Stockman:

        “Until a bipartisan Select Committee with full subpoena authority is created, the Obama administration will continue to stonewall and obstruct. As long as Congress is limited to partial investigations with diminished authority, the Obama administration will continue to cover up fatal errors and possible crimes, denying justice to the victims’ families and leaving open the possibility of future terrorist attacks on Americans overseas.

        The effort to block the creation of a Select Committee a typical Washington cover-up. It is all about protecting Hillary Clinton’s political future. The Obama administration and the growing Clinton campaign cannot afford to have their failures exposed.

        The investigating board did not even question Secretary Clinton. Not one survivor has been allowed to testify to Congress. Repeated requests for information have been blocked. Two different hearings were canceled after witnesses were confronted and intimidated.

        The usual channels of justice have been cut off by a paranoid White House, and congressional leaders are playing along. We have no choice but to file a discharge petition to force a vote of the full Congress on Congressman Frank Wolf’s bill creating a Select Committee with full subpoena power. The survivors and the victims’ families deserve answers, and all Americans overseas deserve to know why their Commander-in-Chief left men to die at the hands of terrorists and why administration personnel seem to have been ordered to protect the Democrat hold on the White House.

        If members of Congress will not seek answers, voters will replace them with those who will.”

        I wish he’d apply that last statement to questions WE the VOTERS have had and still have about Barry’s ineligibility. But for “members of Congress” not seeking answers, we wouldn’t be in this fine mess in the first place. But for the “congressional leaders” who are “playing along,” we wouldn’t be in this fix and no doubt those 4 brave men and MANY OTHERS would still be alive.

        Issa basically said, and was seconded by Mr. Woods, that General Ham is one of the persons who was “compromised” and “intimidated” and who told a different story after being talked to.

      • This link came from Drudge. Very sad and shameful……..


        Spitting on Their Graves: Democrats Leave Benghazi Hearing Before Testimony From Families of Victims

        • That explains why most of those who spoke to them were Republicans. Shameful, indeed.

        • I wonder if they left when Mrs. Smith started talking about “Obama” and “Hillary”? She didn’t call them by their titles, just said “Obama” and “Hillary”. I think the woman has EARNED the right to her feelings and also THEY have EARNED her disrespect.

  5. I have never had a Starbucks coffee. And that is just half the story. 😆

    • Did you see this part? A man after my own heart:

      ““I want Obama to go through the process because he has it coming. In totalitarian states, after all, the people have no other recourse except to take to the streets and spill blood. But we have available the process of impeachment, and Obama should be forced to defend his contemptible lies and actions,” he wrote. “If for no other reason than his unbearable arrogance, the schmuck should have to pay a penalty. For instance, when a White House reporter asked him to justify spying on the Associated Press, Obama said, ‘I’ve still got 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan and I still have a bunch of intelligence officers around the world.’ No, sir, the United States has 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan and a bunch of intelligence officers around the world.””

  6. Rosemary Woodhouse

    I. Me. Mine. What a petty little tinpot dictator he is. As we’ve been typing furiously all along, impeachment is the answer. I honestly believe (and I respect your right to disagree) that Glenn Beck is one of the good guys. He takes too long, in our estimation, to come around but eventually he does.

  7. Since the left is in a war on Christians, can you foresee a time when Starbucks customers take exception to a family saying “grace” before partaking of their scones and java? Then will Schultz respectfully ask Christians for refrain from praying in his stores, lest someone feel uncomfortable or unsettled?

  8. This is un-effing-believable:

    What passes for education in the state of TN.

    “… First, a Tennessee Dept. of Environment and Conservation official tried to intimidate a group of concerned citizens that their baseless complaints about water quality is “an act of terrorism.”

    Then an elementary school in Brentwood, Tennessee tried to ban pork from the school’s menu to avoid offending Muslims.

    Now Todd Starnes reports for Fox News Radio, Sept. 17, 2013, that freshmen students from a Tennessee high school were taken to a Hindu temple and a Muslim mosque on a field trip where they were given copies of the Koran:

    A Tennessee high school has decided to revise its field trip policy after a group of freshmen were taken to an Islamic mosque where they were given copies of the Koran and while a student who opted out of the trip was given a worksheet that alleged Muslims treated their conquered people better than the United States treated minorities. …”

    Revisionist history, but what’s new? Read the entire article. It gets worse. Duct tape recommended to keep your head from exploding.

  9. The place in Benghazi should have been bombed for 4 straight days.

    Starbucks, shut up. ca-ching.
    Just say no to these fanatics, WTPeops.

  10. Rosemary Woodhouse

    Did I mention I love Ted Cruz?

      • That could be a dream ticket, huh?

        • Ted is not eligible period! His father is unil very recently CUBAN! Can you say divided loyalities? Even though I may admire him, I will not support him for President and if he becomes this blogs candidate, I’ll not be commenting here again. Both parties are selling our Country down the $hitter!

          • I will say, that I hope his possible run will bring attention too and flush out all the Treason that has become our current Government. Republicans and Democrats are traitors and need to be punished. JAIL TERMS AND TERM LIMITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • That’s why I said it’s a “dream ticket”. We’d be dreaming to believe he’s eligible. If he intends to run, then he needs to seek a definitive ruling from the SCOTUS. Or a Constitutional Amendment. In other words, it’s a fantasy ticket, and fun to dream, but it is not to be. IF the Republicans nominate him, a lot of people won’t vote for him, on general principles and that would be a guaranteed loss for them, ONCE AGAIN. Do you get the feeling that they pick these guys on purpose? I do.

            Kathy, we don’t HAVE candidates. The parties pick them and then we’re stuck with whatever choices we’re presented with, unfortunately. We don’t endorse any particular candidate. We all have our own choices and nobody has to even tell us whom they may or may not support. We’re for free speech and free opinion. We don’t impose our views on anyone and anyone is free to disagree. We need a new party, one OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE. And that’s not the Democrat Party and it’s also not the old guard in the RINO Party.

          • We need a new party, one OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE. And that’s not the Democrat Party and it’s also not the old guard in the RINO Party.

            Boy do you have that right Miri. Now how do we find a candidate with uncompromizing principles and character to get this party off the ground. The old GOP guard needs to go. I think they are the ones behind the houses vote against food stamps. The truth of what they actually did is not out there. Only GOP cuts food stamps during major unemployment. was the headline. It’s was designed to make the GOP and Cruz look bad and to try to defeat the so called tea party and the push to stop the health care bill disaster. Death panels, etc. have got to go!

            • That’s the lesson that the Republicans need to learn: To get out there in front of the media, to CALL THEM ON THEIR LIES, to frame the issue the RIGHT WAY (like Sarah Palin ALWAYS DOES), and to stop being AFRAID of the media. Pull a Donald Rumsfeld on them. Failing that, pull a Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz. They need to do what Putin and Reagan did–go over the heads of the MEDIA and tell the PEOPLE what’s true and what’s not and POINT OUT HOW THE MEDIA LIES AND WHY THEY DO IT. I’m so sick and tired of these wimps who can’t fight.

          • They are evading that issue.
            As confirmed by Supreme Court Justice Thomas.

            It is time for a new political party. There’s only one in existence today any way, the Combine. Liars.

  11. Rosemary Woodhouse

    Chilling “And you people sit here like cattle”. Bravo. Who’s assaulting whom? And yes, as he asked… this America?

  12. This is just TERRIBLE! Haliburton was only find $200,000. I bet they are laughing up up at our expense and the champaign corks are popping. We have no justice anymore. They need to be in prison! It’s the same thing that is currently going on in Congress. People are lying and obstructing justice right and left and Congress does nothing.

    Halliburton pleads guilty to destroying Gulf spill evidence

    • You should be governed by a rule of law that is clear, consistently and impartially enforced and just,” writes John McLame to RUSSIANS, as he continues, as he has since 2008, to prop up an ineligible POtuS who breaks the rule of law and his oath to the Constitution on a DAILY BASIS, with no apparent opposition from John McLame.

      “President Putin OBAMA and his associates do not believe in these values. They don’t respect your dignity or accept your authority over them. They punish dissent and imprison opponents. [LTC Lakin, for one.] They rig your elections. They control your media. They harass, threaten, and banish organizations [Tea Party] that defend your right to self-governance by misusing the power of government agencies like the IRS, FCC, FEC, SEC. To perpetuate their power they foster rampant corruption in your courts and your economy and terrorize and even assassinate illegally spy on journalists who try to expose their corruption.”

      That’s what McLame wrote to the Russians. I changed the one word and added some others. IS IT NOT STILL ACCURATE?

      Does this Miri-revised treatise NOT describe Obama and his minions ACCURATELY? This so-called representative of We the People has the gall to write about the rule of law and how Putin and his cronies disrespect the Russian people and don’t ACCEPT THEIR AUTHORITY over the president and his minions. THIS, from the man who would not let that woman speak during the 2008 campaign, when she RIGHTLY questioned Obama’s background, loyalty to the USA, and ELIGIBILITY for the office. Was that respectful? This man and his cronies who insulted us, called us “birthers”–does HE accept OUR authority over him and his beloved Obama?

      I’m going to correct McLame’s article again and see if you agree with it:

      “President Putin Obama claims his purpose is to restore Russia the USA, to “fundamentally transform” her, to greatness at home and among the nations of the world. But by what measure has he restored your greatness? He has given you an economy that is based almost entirely dependent on a few natural resources that will rise and fall with those commodities his policies ensure will be tied up and never used, so that the economy flatlines, so that energy prices “necessarily skyrocket.” He’s ensured, by his policies, that the USA’s riches will not last be used to benefit her people or her economy. And, while they do last, they will be mostly in the possession of the corrupt and powerful few. Capital is fleeing Russia the USA, which – lacking rule of law and a broad-based growing economy – is considered too risky for investment and entrepreneurism. He has given you a political system that is sustained by corruption and repression and isn’t strong enough to tolerate dissent.

      How has he strengthened Russia’s the USA’s international stature? By allying Russia the USA with some of the world’s most offensive and threatening tyrannies jihadi terrorist groups. By supporting a Syrian regime rebel group that is murdering tens of thousands of its own people to remain in seize power and by blocking the United Nations from even condemning its their atrocities. By refusing to consider the massacre of innocents, the plight of millions of refugees, the growing prospect of a conflagration that engulfs other countries in its flames an appropriate subject for the world’s attention. He is not enhancing Russia’s the USA’s global reputation. He is destroying it. He has made her a friend to tyrants Muslim terrorists and an enemy to the oppressed dhimmi infidels, and untrusted by nations that seek to build a safer, more peaceful and prosperous FREE world.

      President Putin Obama doesn’t believe in these values because he doesn’t believe in you or in your individual freedom, or the US Constitution. He doesn’t believe that human nature at liberty can rise above its weaknesses and build just, peaceful, prosperous, and FREE societies. Or, at least, he doesn’t believe Russians US citizens can should be allowed to continue to do so, utilizing their God-given individual freedom. So he rules by using those weaknesses, by corruption, repression and violence. He rules for himself, not you.”

  13. BEWARE….lots of BLOOD….as the shooter ONLY wants to KILL
    non-Muslims……. this is WHAT it REALLY LOOKS LIKE!

    • Jihad goes to Africa.

      • BONES1944 says:

        ~ ~ Hey Obama, ~ ~ Hillary ! Hows that religion of peace working
        out for you ? How many murders does it take to convince you ? One million, two million ? how about a hundred million. Any one who murders in the name of a god, any god deserves to burn in hell.

          • My paper headlined that story as Obama “honoring” the victims. Since he turned it into a political rally, I’d say he dishonored them. The most ironic thing was that he pushed for more gun control, when this incident happened in a city with the strictest gun laws around, in a MILITARY building, where troops and citizens alike cannot go armed BECAUSE a prior demoncRAT POtus (Bill Clinton) wrote an executive order banning guns in such buildings. Now, consider this: This happened in a military installation. Who controls, ultimately, what goes on in such buildings? Why, the Commander in Chief and the head of the Executive Branch of our government. That would be Barry Soetoro, aka the current pResident. This incident, if anyone’s responsibility besides the perp, is a FAILURE that belongs to OBAMA.

            1. Background checks are under OBAMA’S rules. If this guy fell through the cracks (and it looks like he did), that’s a failure of OBAMA’S administration.
            2. The ability to carry weapons in military installations falls under OBAMA’S rules. If Clinton can ban them, Barry could have allowed them. Lives may have been saved.
            3. When the Navy was advised of Alexis’s mental problems (hearing voices), the failure to act upon that information falls under OBAMA’S purview. He’s in charge. The buck stops at his desk.
            4. OBAMA’S administration makes the security rules for those buildings. They let this guy into the building, somehow, with a shotgun (which, btw, is exactly what Joe Biden advised people to buy). When some employees say that gun sniffing dogs and metal detectors are used, how is it that Alexis got in with a gun? THAT’S a failure, once again, of OBAMA’S administration.

            More gun control wouldn’t have stopped Alexis. There are already laws and policies that banned that gun on those premises, but somehow, OBAMA FAILED to stop this mass shooting. Whether through special policies that allow blacks to be “affirmatively” hired or given special treatment on background checks, remains to be seen. Hopefully, a Congressional investigation will uncover the truth of why OBAMA failed to stop this shooting.

  14. Doggin us all the way home…. Rose do these suit your fancy??

  15. Just a personal information. The Hooties, as of tomorrow, are no longer unemployed! Mr. Hoot starts job tomorrow. After three months of having the guy around, I am a bit melancholy about him going back. It has been so much fun; so in sync. I so want to hurry up and have us get old so we can retire and spend our days together again! (Someday I will share my inspirational food bank stories.)

  16. Draft Palin/West 2016

    the Combine will go nutz!

  17. It’s Grinder time does Huma stay with her Weiner or go Climb the Hill?
    What will it cost Huma … gaze into the crystal Balls… oh

  18. that Creeped out nose …(whatever it takes!!!) I hope it works … they
    did this once with a hand added on a leg? to keep it till surgery time…
    ~ ~~ ~~~ a bit like ~ OBAMACARE ~
    can the SEEING SEE what they have created??? do they care 2 save FACE? … or LIVE in the FOG…. CALLED DENIAL??? TURKEYS!

    • I remember a human ear grown on a mouse. That was creepy, too. Maybe they can grow John Bobbitt a new one. I have an idea! Let’s grow that on Barry’s forehead since he’s already a …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s