Pictures That Excite Me

We have a cell signal! 

Many of the pictures on OBB do not depict spanking. Many are pictures of attractive women that I can imagine spanking or be spanked by. There are thousands of sites that feature red asses. Those pictures do nothing for us, so we don’t collect them or post them.

Here are six pictures that excite me.

I think the first one is a dream sequence in a movie. One great dream!  I would love to be in his place.

This woman would be a welcome house guest. She has a great smile. Her outfit dates the picture, but I like it.

A great paddling outfit. I like the garters built into the panty. I imagine she has on a matching shelf bra that has her breasts way up firm and high.

A couple from the neighborhood over for drinks, dinner and paddling fun.
Mrs. Daniels showing me that she still has it.

I like this one. It’s hot to me. But, I hate OTK. We have had a Fli-back all our marriage. We know what it can do when used fast and furious. And it’s scary. I was never paddled like this as a kid. So why do pictures like this fascinate me?

Now you know where my mind lives.

Two Alike

I don’t know if these lasses having a spanking in their immediate future or not, but the dresses would be ideal for the purpose. 

British school uniforms have never turned me on. Usually, they are modeled by women way too old to be wearing them. I particularly don’t care for the usual dark green panties. I suspect they were required school wear because they look so bad, no one could think impure thoughts when seeing them. Your mileage may vary.

These lasses however, do it for me. Pink panties are always in fashion. I love the hats. Boaters I think they are called.

I wonder how Ronnie looks in a hat and pink panties?

What’s On My Mind Today

‘Net Neutrality’ or more accurately ‘internet regulation’. Do we want the net to be governed by technologists and engineers and businesspeople, as it was under the light-touch approach during the Clinton administration, or by government lawyers and bureaucrats in Washington?

Victor Davis Hanson’s Score Card
Libtards should not attempt to read this, it contains facts.
Libtards should stick to the headlines presented daily by the MSM.

Shortly after Donald Trump won the election, House Speaker Paul Ryan said that Republicans had to “go big, go bold, and do things.” So far, the GOP has not delivered.

“They have the House, they have the Senate, they have the presidency — and nothing’s happening,” lamented PJ Media co-founder Roger Simon earlier this week.

The recent Earth Day, protests around the country focused on “science.” What they didn’t focus on is facts, because the facts show that the U.S. has made huge strides in cleaning up the environment.

Given the trends in air quality, water quality, toxics and, yes, even CO2 emissions, you’d think Earth Day would be a grand celebration of a monumental achievement that has allowed this country to produce vastly more goods and services for millions more people while sharply cutting pollution.

The fact is that by any important measure, the environment is cleaner and healthier today than it was 60 years ago, 40 years ago, or even 20 years ago.

For example, data from the Environmental Protection Agency show that, from 1995-2015, levels of every air pollutant it monitors saw steady declines, to the point where they are at or below national standards.

Carbon monoxide levels plunged 72% over those years; nitrogen dioxide fell 45%; ozone, 24%; soot, 37%; sulfur dioxide, 73%; and lead declined 93%.

The sharp reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions “significantly reduced damage to water quality in lakes and streams, and improved the health of ecosystems and forests,” according to the EPA.

The share of children tested who showed high levels of lead in their blood dropped from close to 8% in 1995 to just 0.5% by 2015.

Water quality overall has improved, with once severely polluted lakes, rivers and streams clearing  up. Per-capita water use has declined 30% since 1975, notes the U.S. Geological Survey.

Vast improvements in farming technology mean farmers use less water and far fewer pesticides to grow more crops.  Improvements in crop yields has let the country reclaim vast acres of forestland. In fact, forest acreage has climbed 6% since 1920, despite the tripling of the U.S. population, according to the Department of Agriculture.

But what about global warming? Surely we’re pumping more CO2 in the air than ever before?

Wrong. In 2015, CO2 emissions were below where they stood in 1996. That’s despite the fact that there are 52 million more people living in the U.S., and despite the fact that the nation’s economic output was 61% bigger, after adjusting for inflation. CO2 emission have dropped 9% since 2005, according to EPA data.

It is true that at least some of these gains are the result of environmental regulations. But not nearly all of them. The CO2 reductions, for example, came before the Obama administration imposed any meaningful federal regulations. They were largely due to the vast increase in natural gas supplies that resulted from fracking, which let numerous power plants switch from coal to gas and cut CO2 emissions.

Other gains were also driven by the free-market economy’s relentless demand for greater efficiency. Energy use costs money, so companies will always be looking for ways to use less of it. And pollution is a waste, which means companies will — without any push from government — tend to produce less of it.

But whatever the relative contribution of regulations and market competition, the fact is that the environment is remarkably cleaner. And if the EPA never issued a single new regulation, these gains would continue.

So, the question is, why aren’t environmentalists celebrating this fantastic victory? Why do they still wear long faces and act as if the country is headed for an ecological disaster?

Is it possible that the real interest of environmentalists isn’t so much a cleaner environment as it is being able to exert greater control over everyone else? Sure seems that way.

Return To The Valley Of Fire

One of our most popular posts was Valley Of Fire. Read that so you can see the Fish Paddle.

We were here two years ago. It’s normally too hot be around Vegas this time of year. But, a cold front came through and allowed us to return. 

Bacall got excited when I asked if she wanted to come here again. She well remembers the fun we had in our private canyon. Like most people, we enjoy outdoor paddlings. In our private canyon, no one could see us, but the sounds of the paddle pops were amplified on the rock walls and I am sure they could be heard for some distance. Our private spot was taken, but our second choice was almost as good. It sure proved good enough for Bacall. 

She was sitting in a camp chair outside reading when I finished my shower. I held up the Fish paddle for her to see through the window. As I led her around the side of the huge rock that was to be our privacy screen she said she really didn’t need a paddling that she was so already turned on I could take her right then. I said a few pops with Mr. Fish would make the day memorable. She took down her shorts and I gave her six solid pops on her black panties.

We went in the RV, she got on the sofa and looked out on the rocks while I gave her another six licks. A few touches and she came and came.

Sorry, no pictures were taken.

We expect to be at Bend Over Rock in a few days.

We Missed Our Monday Morning Post

We have been off the grid for a few days and did not get anything uploaded. Plus we are very low on post ideas. And we may not have much internet access over the week or so. Excuses, excuses. But, Bend Over Rock is coming up soon.

Saw this picture this morning and it shows how the folks in flyover country got the idea that LA was all about cars and blonde girls. This was taken in 1972.

OK, I am a sucker for white short shorts. Mustangs are cool, but I have always been a Mopar guy

Saturday Musing’s

I pause from taking the food out of the mouths of hungry children to write a few words.

Philosophy was one of my minors. I struggled with it. I still do.

Proverbs 4:7 – Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

Epistemology – The theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.

Being told something is true does not mean it is true. The use of logic and reason beginning from a set of givens or first principles is one approach to epistemology.

The left has no rational argument, so they anathematize rather than argue back. This we have even seen on OBB. Ad hominem attacks, faux awards, etc. It is now common for the left to say that any criticism of their views is a form of violence. Absurd! It’s one rung up from political correctness, which I define as “Shut up, I have already made up my mind.” Or as Kimberly Strassel’s five year old explains ““Free speech is that you can say what you want—as long as I like it.”.

You may read the text of her speech on free speech here

                                                             *  *  *

So we have Islamists wanting our heads, and the lefties heads also, but they think otherwise. What are we going to do. I say we gather up a large quantity of the libtards and air drop them into the Bob Marshall Wilderness in early spring. The coyotes will be thankful. The Islamists? They have to go also. Since they are far more numerous and spread out over a large area of the world, it’s going to require a big solution.

                                                             *  *  *

Erica closes down her Blog.
Also, I made the mistake, in a time of weakness, of writing political posts on here. Please. Can we all agree that there’s enough of that shit out there everywhere you look? I mean, really — using a spanking blog, of all things, to push one’s political agenda is arrogant, self-serving and a big waste of time, don’t you think? So I do apologize for that bit of foolishness.

Well, our best to you. You have given us new purpose with our Saturday posts.

Speaking of sensitivity, we now have moral princesses. They are so sensitive to moral concerns that they are enraged by things the rest of us crude commoners do not even notice. For instance:
Regular person: “Mmm, this chicken tikka masala is delicious.” Activist: “I can’t eat that, as doing so makes me complicit in the British colonialist legacy.”

                                                             *  *  *

Trump is behaving about as I expected. The Trump Presidency has been perpetual turbulence, which seems to be how the likes it. He is ham-handed in things like firing Comey, who needed firing, but not the way it was done. That said, the bright spot for us is some freedom from regulations. Getting government out business will result in more choices and lower costs.

Two examples:

The Federal Communications Commission this month is launching initiatives that will shape the fate of America’s wireless industry. Last week it started to examine competition in the market, and this week it will propose taking Depression-era utility regulations off mobile broadband networks while protecting an open internet. This is only the beginning. The FCC is acting on a rare opportunity to correct its recent mistakes and restore the Clinton-era light-touch regulatory framework that will drive economic growth and job creation.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is wasting no time broadcasting that an era of lawless environmental regulation is over. One of the best signals so far is the agency’s agreement last week to let the Pebble Mine project in Alaska proceed through regular permitting and legal order.

The Trump voter remains fixed on achieving the Trump agenda—the economy, health care, taxes, education, America’s global standing, financial reform, immigration, infrastructure, etc, but his mouth may defeat much of that.

This Would Be Fun For Me

I have been paddled by another woman while Bacall watched and vice versa several times. Usually, Bacall did half the paddling. But this picture is slightly different from what we did. Here “Bacall” is paying close attention to my facial expressions as the licks land. It’s hot to me.

Would love to be paddled by another couple while we are side by side, one of them would have to be a lefty. And also while we are facing each other.

A Two-Fer

We had a marvelous paddling session the other day. For Bacall, it was long overdue. Various health issues have combined in last few years to dull her “sex drive”. She is pissed about that. She still wants the paddle about every week, but she is not able to “get off” on it as she was accustomed to in the past. Yesterday, was like old times for her.

She had mentioned the previous day that a paddling would be welcome. The next morning, she remarked that it was a shame we had not brought the red paddle as she was putting on red panties. Subtlety does not become her. She thought I needed a paddling also and that I should also wear red panties. I said in several ways, that I intended to toast her bottom to my satisfaction. I took off my belt and proceeded to spank her over her panties for some time. She cooed. I pulled her panties down and continued with the belt. Still only coos and yumms. She was now quite pink. I knew then she was getting into her space.

It was time for for her paddle. She got in her favored position, knees on the couch and looking out the window. That day, Lake Powell was her view. I wrapped my left hand around her and gripped her you know what. Just a grip, no kneading. Her panties were covering her again, as she likes to be paddled that way. I reminded her that it was going to sting a lot and she was just going to have to take it. That works wonders on her brain when she is in that space. I started paddling and she kept swishing her bottom around to let me know it was working and to keep on paddling. After a time, I pulled her panties down and told her to tell me she wanted to be paddled. She did and I did. Begging to be spanked works miracles on her brain. I had retained my grip on her you know what and she was pressing herself against my hand. A few more times of her telling me to paddle her and she came like a house on fire.

And yes, after she cooled down. She gave me I have no idea how many licks with the batten on the front of my legs. Then a few on the back of my legs. Soon I was bending over the couch and she was paddling me hard. And that’s how the day that morning went.

Bacall’s account
Monday, I mentioned that Tuesday would probably be a good morning for a paddling.  After breakfast, Bogey started getting dressed when I reminded him that  I had mentioned a paddling today – it had been a long time since I was in the proper “mood”.  We are parked at a beautiful beach and I was in the right frame of mind for a good paddling.

I put on a pair of red panties and so did he.  We relaxed and had a cup of coffee while thinking about the upcoming event.  All the while, I am getting more excited.  I just knew this was going to be a good paddling. Bogey got the paddles out and then he got his belt.  I just love the feel of the leather belt across my bottom.  He had me get over his lap and then he begin the spank me, first with his hand and then with his belt.  Ah, I was in a happy place.  Next I bent over the sofa, facing the beach, and he got the “holey” paddle.  By this time, I am going from warm to hot!  Panties down once again (they’ve been up and down several times) and the bare bottom paddling begins.  I am now hot and I want more.  He changes to the teacher’s paddle.  It stings and I tell him “More” as he continues to rub me.  I climax with the last pops.  

It takes me a few minutes to recover and I thank him for a wonderful morning.  But, the morning isn’t over yet.  Now it’s Bogey’s turn.  First I use the wooden batten on the front of his legs.  When I think it’s enough, I give my attention to the back of his legs.  He has been aroused since he paddled me.  I give him a few pops over his red panties, but quickly pull them down and give him a bare bottom paddling with the principal’s paddle.  Then, remembering how much I enjoyed my paddling with the teacher’s paddle, I want to return the favor.  He said it stung and was a hard  paddling, but I know he enjoyed it!

The West’s Obsession With ‘Terror’

Where Are the Moderate Muslims?After every terrorist attack, politicians and pundits reassure us that the atrocity does not represent the true beliefs of the “moderate Muslim majority.” But how many moderates are there? And what exactly does “moderate” mean? Hussein Aboubakr explains.

Next, a long scholarly interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The West’s obsession with ‘terror’ has been a mistake, she argues. Dawa, the ideology behind it, is a broader threat.

By Tunku Varadarajan April 7, 2017 2:41 p.m. ET
Stanford, Calif.

The woman sitting opposite me, dressed in a charcoal pantsuit and a duck-egg-blue turtleneck, can’t go anywhere, at any time of day, without a bodyguard. She is soft- spoken and irrepressibly sane, but also—in the eyes of those who would rather cut her throat than listen to what she says—the most dangerous foe of Islamist extremism in the Western world. We are in a secure room at a sprawling university, but the queasiness in my chest takes a while to go away. I’m talking to a woman with multiple fatwas on her head, someone who has a greater chance of meeting a violent end than anyone I’ve met (Salman Rushdie included). And yet she’s wholly poised, spectacles pushed back to rest atop her head like a crown, dignified and smiling under siege.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, born in Somalia in 1969, is Islam’s most eloquent apostate. She has just published a slim book that seeks to add a new four- letter word—dawa—to the West’s vocabulary. It describes the ceaseless, world-wide ideological campaign waged by Islamists as a complement to jihad. It is, she says, the greatest threat facing the West and “could well bring about the end of the European Union as we know it.” America is far from immune, and her book, “The Challenge of Dawa,” is an explicit attempt to persuade the Trump administration to adopt “a comprehensive anti-dawa strategy before it is too late.”

Ms. Hirsi Ali has come a long way from the days when she—“then a bit of a hothead”— declared Islam to be incapable of reform, while also calling on Muslims to convert or abandon religion altogether. That was a contentious decade ago. Today she believes that Islam can indeed be reformed, that it must be reformed, and that it can be reformed only by Muslims themselves—by those whom she calls “Mecca Muslims.” These are the faithful who prefer the gentler version of Islam that she says was “originally promoted by Muhammad” before 622. That was the year he migrated to Medina and the religion took a militant and unlovely ideological turn.

At the same time, Ms. Hirsi Ali—now a research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, where I also work—is urging the West to look at Islam with new eyes. She says it must be viewed “not just as a religion, but also as a political ideology.” To regard Islam merely as a faith, “as we would Christianity or Buddhism, is to run the risk of ignoring dawa, the activities carried out by Islamists to keep Muslims energized by a campaign to impose Shariah law on all societies—including countries of the West.”

Dawa, Ms. Hirsi Ali explains, is “conducted right under our noses in Europe, and in America. It aims to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and also to push existing Muslims in a more extreme direction.” The ultimate goal is “to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with Shariah.” It is a “never-ending process,” she says, and then checks herself: “It ends when an Islamic utopia is achieved. Shariah everywhere!”

Ms. Hirsi Ali contends that the West has made a colossal mistake by its obsession with “terror” in the years since 9/11. “In focusing only on acts of violence,” she says, “we’ve ignored the Islamist ideology underlying those acts. By not fighting a war of ideas against political Islam—or ‘Islamism’—and against those who spread that ideology in our midst, we’ve committed a blunder.”
There is a knock on the door. I hear hushed voices outside, presumably her bodyguard telling someone to come back later. To add to the mildly dramatic effect, a siren is audible somewhere in the distance, unusual for the serene Stanford campus. Ms. Hirsi Ali is unfazed. “What the Islamists call jihad,” she continues, “is what we call terrorism, and our preoccupation with it is, I think, a form of overconfidence. ‘Terrorism is the way of the weak,’ we tell ourselves, ‘and if we can just take out the leaders and bring down al Qaeda or ISIS, then surely the followers will stop their jihad.’ But we’re wrong. Every time Western leaders take down a particular organization, you see a different one emerge, or the same one take on a different shape. And that’s because we’ve been ignoring dawa.”

Ms. Hirsi Ali wants us to get away from this game of jihadi Whac-A-Mole and confront “the enemy that is in plain sight—the activists, the Islamists, who have access to all the Western institutions of socialization.” She chuckles here: “That’s a horrible phrase . . . ‘institutions of socialization’ . . . but they’re there, in families, in schools, in universities, prisons, in the military as chaplains. And we can’t allow them to pursue their aims unchecked.”

America needs to be on full alert against political Islam because “its program is fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution”—with religious pluralism, the equality of men and women, and other fundamental rights, including the toleration of different sexual orientations. “When we say the Islamists are homophobic,” she observes, “we don’t mean that they don’t like gay marriage. We mean that they want gays put to death.”

Islam the religion, in Ms. Hirsi Ali’s view, is a Trojan horse that conceals Islamism the political movement. Since dawa is, ostensibly, a religious missionary activity, its proponents “enjoy a much greater protection by the law in free societies than Marxists or fascists did in the past.” Ms. Hirsi Ali is not afraid to call these groups out. Her book names five including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which asserts—and in turn receives in the mainstream media—the status of a moderate Muslim organization. But groups like CAIR, Ms. Hirsi Ali says, “take advantage of the focus on ‘inclusiveness’ by progressive political bodies in democratic societies, and then force these societies to bow to Islamist demands in the name of peaceful coexistence.”

Her strategy to fight dawa evokes several parallels with the Western historical experience of radical Marxism and the Cold War. Islamism has the help of “useful idiots”—Lenin’s phrase—such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has denounced Ms. Hirsi Ali as an “extremist.” She sees that smear as a success for dawa: “They go to people like the SPLC and say, ‘Can we partner with you, because we also want to talk about what you guys talk about, which is civil rights. And Muslims are a minority, just like you.’ So, they play this victim card, and the SPLC swallows it. And it’s not just them, it’s also the ACLU. The Islamists are infiltrating all these institutions that were historic and fought for rights. It’s a liberal blind spot.”

Western liberals, she says, are also complicit in an Islamist cultural segregation. She recalls a multiculturalist catchphrase from her years as a Somali refugee in Amsterdam in the early 1990s: “ ‘Integrate with your own identity,’ they used to tell us—Integratie met eigen identiteit. Of course, that resulted in no integration at all.”

Ms. Hirsi Ali wants the Trump administration—and the West more broadly—to counter the dawa brigade “just as we countered both the Red Army and the ideology of communism in the Cold War.” She is alarmed by the ease with which, as she sees it, “the agents of dawa hide behind constitutional protections they themselves would dismantle were they in power.” She invokes Karl Popper, the great Austrian-British philosopher who wrote of “the paradox of tolerance.” Her book quotes Popper writing in 1945: “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

I ask Ms. Hirsi Ali what her solution might be, and she leans once more on Popper, who proposed a right not to tolerate the intolerant. “Congress must give the president—this year, because there’s no time to lose—the tools he needs to dismantle the infrastructure of dawa in the U.S.” Dawa has become an existential menace to the West, she adds, because its practitioners are “working overtime to prevent the assimilation of Muslims into Western societies. It is assimilation versus dawa. There is a notion of ‘cocooning,’ by which Islamists tell Muslim families to cocoon their children from Western society. This can’t be allowed to happen.”

Is Ms. Hirsi Ali proposing to give Washington enhanced powers to supervise parenting? “Yes,” she says. “We want these children to be exposed to critical thinking, freedom, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the rights of women.” She also suggests subjecting immigrants and refugees to ideological scrutiny, so as to deny entry, residence and naturalization to those “involved with, or supportive of, Islamism.”

In effect, Ms. Hirsi Ali would modernize the “communism test” that still applies to those seeking naturalization. “I had to answer questions when I applied for citizenship in 2013: ‘Are you, or have you ever been, a communist?’ And I remember thinking, ‘God, that was the war back then. We’re supposed to update this stuff!’ Potential immigrants from Pakistan or Bangladesh, for instance, should have to answer questions—‘Are you a member of the Jamat?’ and so on. If they’re from the Middle East you ask them about the Muslim Brotherhood, ‘or any other similar group,’ so there’s no loophole.”

Might critics deride this as 21st-century McCarthyism? “That’s just a display of intellectual laziness,” Ms. Hirsi Ali replies. “We’re dealing here with a lethal ideological movement and all we are using is surveillance and military means? We have to grasp the gravity of dawa. Jihad is an extension of dawa. For some, in fact, it is dawa by other means.”

The U.S., she believes, is in a “much weaker position to combat the various forms of nonviolent extremism known as dawa because of the way that the courts have interpreted the First Amendment”—a situation where American exceptionalism turns into what she calls an “exceptional handicap.” Convincing Americans of this may be the hardest part of Ms. Hirsi Ali’s campaign, and she knows it. Yet she asks whether the judicial attitudes of the 1960s and 1970s—themselves a reaction to the excesses of Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s—might have left the U.S. ill-equipped to suppress threats from groups that act in the name of religion.

I ask Ms. Hirsi Ali if there’s any one thing she would wish for. “I would like to be present at a conversation between Popper and Muhammad,” she says. “Popper wrote about open society and its enemies, and subjected everyone from Plato to Marx to his critical scrutiny. I’d have liked him to subject Muhammad’s legacy to the same analysis.

“But he skipped Muhammad, alas. He skipped Muhammad.”

Mr. Varadarajan is a research fellow in journalism at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.