Hump Day for the working masses

I don’t see enough of this attire in the wild. But, when I do, I want to spank what I see.

Bacall showed me these shorts. We both regret she would no longer look good in them. She liked to dress like this and priss around.

When I see yoga pants in the wild, it seems most women hang a jacket over their bottoms to prevent viewing. Makes me wonder why they wear them.

What about a pair of well-fitting jeans?

Jodphurs, not just for riding

I can not puzzle this screen name out, but I appreciate his/her regular Likes.

Be like bklynny.

Paddling Debbie

Debbie loved to have her bubble butt paddled. I was honored to do so.

The First Time – She wore a schoolgirl outfit – her idea

Bending over the dining room chair that she checked for proper spanking height before buying

Bacall gives her what-for

A Sunday morning going away paddling

Bulls eyes! – Just getting started

Our custom spoon in action


Saturday Again

Three thoughtful articles this week.

The Democrat Fighting H.R.1

An attempt to federalize state and local elections

By Kimberley A. Strassel

Behind the Democrats’ push for their federal take-over of congressional elections is their insistence that it will sweep away “racist” voting laws and increase voter turnout. No wonder they had no interest this week in hearing from a Democratic legend who knows—and can prove—that they are full of it.

That Democrat is Bill Gardner, New Hampshire’s secretary of state. Mr. Gard- ner has been overseeing Granite State voting since Dec. 2, 1976, a week before Stacey Abrams’s 3rd birthday. In December, a bipartisan vote of the New Hampshire Legislature elected him to a 23rd two-year term. The longest-serving secretary of state in U.S. history, he’s an institution, famous for his apolitical commitment to the state’s constitution and its first-in-the-nation primary.

Mr. Gardner was invited (by Republicans) to testify at Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, which the Democratic majority titled “Jim Crow 2021: The Latest Assault on the Right to Vote.” Ms. Abrams got most of the headlines; the media and Senate Democrats barely acknowledged Mr. Gardner’s presence. And no wonder. It isn’t only that Mr. Gardner vehemently opposes his party’s H.R.1 bill, which would federally impose procedures such as early and absentee voting on the states. He also has incontrovertible evidence that the narrative behind it is a crock.

“Just because you make voting easier, it does not raise turnout automatically,” Mr. Gardner told the committee. It can have the opposite result by undermining “the trust and confidence voters have in the process.” He called it a “fine balance.” The New Hampshire evidence makes the case.

By Democrats’ definition, New Hampshire has some of the most “suppressive” voter laws anywhere. In the hearing and in a subsequent interview with me, Mr. Gardner explained that some of these rules are part of the state’s constitution. That document requires that residents show up to vote in person unless they are physically disabled or out of town. That means no mail-in voting. The state constitution requires that the final vote tally for each candidate be publicly declared at each polling place the night of the election after the polls close. This is one reason New Hampshire doesn’t allow early voting, which can cause the counting to stretch for days.

New Hampshire is one of four states that don’t allow provisional ballots—again, because it would derail the public reading of tallies. The state requires voter identification. It also requires in-person registration at a town hall or at a polling place on Election Day; it went out of its way to become exempt from the 1993 federal “motor voter” law that allows registration by motor vehicle offices and other bureaucracies.

Racist? Suppressive? Onerous? Hardly. For the past five presidential elections, New Hampshire has been in the top five states for voter turnout. It’s been third in the past four presidential elections, last year pulling 72.2% of its voting-age population to the polls. That exceeded U.S. turnout by nearly 11 points; in 2016 the figure was 14.5 points.

New Hampshire’s experience aside, Mr. Gardner offered the committee a contrasting (and more honest) history of voting in Oregon, the first state to shift to voting by mail. He recalled that New Hampshire’s secretary of state blows up the claims of ‘voter suppression.’

in the early 1990s, Oregon’s secretary of state pitched him on joining him in that move. Mr. Gardner declined. Before Oregon introduced all-mail voting in 1996, it had routinely been in the top 11 states for voter turnout in presidential elections, and often beat New Hampshire. It has never topped New Hamp- shire since, and in 2012 fell as low as 17th.

The Granite Stater says he believes deeply in making voting straightforward and accessible, and New Hampshire does that in many ways, including same-day registration. “But I’ve seen what ways to make it easier actually work and what ways don’t work,” he says. They aren’t all equal, and H.R.1’s provisions would likely do the opposite of what Democrats claim.

Mr. Gardner also provided the committee a chart showing U.S. voter turnout in presidential elections since 1952. He tells me he doesn’t think it is an accident that five of the six highest-turn- out years were in the 1950s and ’60s, before the beginning of federal efforts to meddle in state elections with laws like the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act and the 1993 National Voter Registration Act. People lose trust, and even pride in their unique state systems. (Another factor might be the 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, which lowered the voting age to 18.)

Mr. Gardner has also issued a statement blasting Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats for their “attack” on his state and pointing out that the California system she wants to impose on the country has resulted in her state being ranked 46th, 49th, 49th and 43rd for turnout in the past four presidential elections. “There are 435 members of Congress; New Hampshire has two of them,” he tells me. Just five or six big states “have about half of all the members, and they’ll be writing our voting laws. I’m not telling them how to vote. Why are they telling us in New Hampshire how to vote? Especially given our record.”

And that’s the real question. Democrats’ “Jim Crow” claims are completely at odds with the evidence. If they are going to continue with H.R.1, they should at least be honest that the goal is to rig the system.

The Maxine Waters Problem

When America’s officials desert any standards for public or personal behavior, expect violence.

The emptiest, most meaningless statement in American politics in our time is: “No one condones violence.” That weaselly default word, “condone,” may be one reason the violence now never seems to stop.

It was astonishing in the runup to the guilty verdict in Derek Chauvin’s trial to see reports of cities preparing for more riots, not only Minneapolis but New York, Philadelphia, Oakland, Calif., Portland, Ore., and Washington. But as with Covid, social distancing from violence is mandatory.

When Rep. Maxine Waters of California (Los Angeles) was asked whether she was inciting violence by telling the demonstrators arrayed around her in Brooklyn Center, Minn., to “get more confrontational,” she responded with the politician’s user-key response that she isn’t “about violence.”

Don’t bother looking, Ms. Waters, but you—like all the rest of us today in the United States—are engulfed in violence: the political violence of street protests, the violence of rising urban crime, the violence of cops either shooting suspects or getting shot by suspects, and the violence committed routinely by homicidal shooters.

In the largest U.S. cities, the number of murders is rising. This is only the fourth month of 2021, and in New York City there have been more than 100 murders, nearly 180 in Chicago, at least 97 in Los Angeles. Minneapolis’s 21st homicide victim, a teenager, was found dead the day of the Chauvin verdict.

These are all individual deaths, but they’ve become banal and barely noted. Urban killing and other crime runs as background noise to the more publicized street protests, cop incidents and serial shooters.

It might seem like a stretch to conflate political riots, violent inner-city crime and individual shooters, but I’m not so sure they aren’t related. Obviously something is spinning out of control in the U.S. Whatever status quo exists to mitigate each of these forms of violence, it isn’t working anymore. It is failing.

There used to be widely shared boundaries on personal and public behavior. Not anymore. A lot of people no longer know how to behave or where the lines are that one shouldn’t cross.

Or, as with last summer’s political street protests, the former lines and limits have been erased. That July’s Democratic National Convention passed without one person addressing the destruction in numerous cities was a big event, a turning point, for U.S. society generally.

We are paying a high price for this transition to few limits. Derek Chauvin is about to pay a very high price for not knowing when to let up on George Floyd.

Most striking is how many people have become unconscious of or psychologically detached from the consequences of what they are doing.

In Wisconsin last weekend, the Kenosha tavern shooter got angry, went home, got a gun, and went back to the tavern to kill three people. What did this formerly free man think was going to happen next?

On the same day, an Austin, Texas, shooter, a former cop, went to an apartment complex, killed three people, and was next seen on TV standing on a highway with his hands on his head while the police put him in handcuffs—basically forever.

How could the post election Washington mob that invaded the Capitol think that was no different than attending a rally on the Mall?

Whatever happened to the thought, “Maybe I don’t want to do this?” Or shouldn’t do this.

Somehow, that internal brake on behavior eroded, and now we too often find ourselves dealing with the grim, out-of-control results. An epitaph is the awful phrase of the mother of the FedEx shooter in Indianapolis, who informed the authorities that she feared her son was going to commit “suicide by cop.”

The system let him fall through the cracks, as it did in 2018 in Parkland, Fla.—as it has with other shooters. Made passive by its own rules, the public mental-health system—the so-called administrative state—has proved incapable of providing basic protections for individuals and communities. Whatever the reasons, the resulting catastrophes proliferate. More gun-control inevitably will be another such administrative failure.

There is a pattern here of misgovernance and misjudgments. Black Lives Matter and its advocates argue, correctly, that the criminal-justice system arrests and jails too many young black men. Their solution is de minimis policing and prosecution, explicitly to repair “systemic racism.”

This is a consequentially dangerous error of judgment. They are absolving young men of personal responsibility for acts of violence against their neighbors.

The reality across the U.S.—on the streets of protest, in the toughest neighborhoods or in the minds of the homicidally deranged—is that the simple and utilitarian concept of behavioral “pushback” has lost consensus support.

Without pushback’s demarcation of limits—whether with accepted norms of behavior, a basic police function, or the credible defense of limits by public officials (not least U.S. presidents)—the future will bring more crude violence. Which no one will condone.

This was the original meaning behind the idea of maintaining social guardrails. They’ve been taken down—again.

Appeared in the April 22, 2021, WSJ

The Left Brightens GOP Midterm Chances

Democrats won’t have a leg to stand on if they keep shooting themselves in the foot.

A perception that’s long haunted Democrats—that they’re antipolice and weak on law-and-order—hurt them in 2020 and is likely to inflict even more damage on their electoral prospects in 2022.

Take Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D., N.Y.), who’s charged with protecting his party’s House majority as Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman. That’s a difficult job for any party in possession of the White House; since World War II, the average loss in the House for a president’s party in his first midterm has been about 28 seats. If that happens next year, Republicans will have 241 seats to the Democrats’ 194 and Nancy Pelosi will be out as Speaker.

But Mr. Maloney made his task more difficult during a recent interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” The host, a former GOP congressman who spends most of his airtime attacking Republicans, lobbed a softball. How would the DCCC chair “counteract” Republican charges that Democrats favor “defunding the police, cancel culture, socialism” and “packing the court”?

Mr. Maloney offered a three-word response: “lies and demagoguery.” He then veered off into hammering the need to emphasize racial justice, before calling Republican accusations “cheap political points” aimed at “whipping up white resentment.” The New Yorker finished off by decrying “racist voting laws” and saying we can’t go “back to the Jim Crow era.”

Mr. Scarborough was taken aback by Mr. Maloney’s inartful reply and asked again, “What do you say” to Republican arguments, for example, that “Democrats wanted to defund the police?” The congressman repeated that Democrats are “fighting for racial justice” while GOP favors what he termed “racist voting laws.” He triumphantly declared that Republicans “got their butt kicked in November,” and followed up with a diatribe about “the ugliest racism and Jim Crow era laws.” Mr. Maloney then demanded: “What the hell is the Republican Party doing?”

When Mr. Scarborough asked a third time how Democrats would respond to GOP claims, Mr. Maloney accused him of “repeating a Republican talking point for reasons I don’t know.”

Here’s the question: What in Mr. Maloney’s rant would convince a single swing voter to support Democrats in 2022? And that wasn’t the end of the Democrats shooting their own feet.

Last week, Michigan Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib tweeted: “Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist. . . . No more policing, incarceration, and militarization.” The police chief in Ms. Tlaib’s hometown, Detroit, called for her resignation, but the representative’s fellow Democrats only mumbled. All Speaker Pelosi could manage was to assert that not all police can be painted “with the same brush,” while White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Ms. Tlaib’s tweet was “not the president’s view.” Which do you think swing voters will recall more readily: Ms. Tlaib’s screed or the milquetoast reactions of the speaker and White House?

Then on Saturday, Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) told protesters that if Derek Chauvin wasn’t found guilty, “we got to not only stay in the street, but we have got to fight for justice. . . . We’ve got to get more confrontational” so “they know that we mean business.”

Mrs. Pelosi defended Ms. Waters, saying the Californian didn’t need to apologize, as her call for confrontation was “in the manner of the civil-rights movement.” The second-ranking House Democrat, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, said “I don’t think she meant violence.” That won’t fly with swing district voters, especially if Republican candidates denounce all violent protests.

Even President Biden and his White House seem tone-deaf in ways that’ll drag his party down in the midterms. After Mr. Biden in a post golf gaggle with reporters Saturday used the word “crisis” to describe the southern border, he was corrected Monday by his press secretary. Ms. Psaki said Mr. Biden wasn’t referring to “children coming to our border” when he used the forbidden word “crisis,” but to conditions in Central America, where the “influx of migrants” was coming from.

Most Americans see what’s happening on our border even through the Democrats’ disingenuous spin. A sophisticated criminal enterprise is reaping millions of dollars from hundreds of thousands of desperate people seeking to make their way into the U.S. illegally. It’s overwhelming border security, but the Biden administration is afraid to call it a crisis, not wanting to give offense to the left.

But progressives can’t carry the party through the midterms. A campaign dominated by statements such as Ms. Waters and Ms. Tlaib’s will be a twofer, driving GOP turnout and shifting swing voters to the right. Republicans must do more to win, starting with offering their own agenda. But so far Democrats are making it easy to portray their party as too extreme for everyone right of Marx.

Appeared in the April 22, 2021, WSJ

Bra Spankings

Well, isn’t Bra Spanking an odd title? So I will open the week with something odd.

This first picture has been on my computer for almost two decades. It’s not that sexy is it? Why do I have it? I think I was drawn to it as we had a popup camper for a time. And we both got paddled in the great outdoors. I sure wish I had taken even one picture on those trips. Back in the days of film.

It’s obviously an amateur picture. The best kind, I think. It shows her bottom a light pink. She is young, 20-something I would guess. Perhaps the picture represents the charm and innocence of youth? That could be Bacall holding on to the tree. She has a thing for trees.

The other reason is that her bra strap is somehow appealing to me. Yes, I know that is weird. This is a self discovery I have made in my old age. I have always been drawn to small breasted women – B or maybe C cup. Small breasts are just as sensitive as larger ones to licks, caresses and pinches. They have the advantage of less sagging due to the natural aging process.

I looked through my pictures and found several that feature less endowed women taking or giving a spanking while wearing a bra. So I have had this fetish for a long time, it was just made clear to me recently.

There are times, that bare breasted is less appealing to me than wearing a bra. So revoke my male certification. In my spanking days, getting her bra off was never a thing with me. There was no reason for her bra to be off to be spanked. Some men think it adds humiliation. I don’t think anyone I spanked wanted to be humiliated. I sure never wanted to humiliate anyone.

Spanking was never a peep show for me. I could care less about her “parts”. I focused on spanking her. I watched how her body reacted to ever lick. Was there an involuntary muscle tremor? Did her head come up? Did she vocalize? Etc.

This one of girl spanking girl is equally appealing to me. Again small breasted. I think I might like this picture even more if the spankee had on a bra.

I have had the pleasure of seeing a few girl spanks girl scenes. Bacall was the spanker in a few of them. Have to say, the girls never held back.


In this girl spanks guy image, she has on a more substantial bra than the previous ones. The guy has his gossamer panties pulled down. [You know even thin panties provide protection from the sting of the paddle] I am not sure why she is holding the paddle like she is. It’s going to take some wrist action to get it flat on contact.


The next two are long time favs. They are from a series of a pro spanker giving the guy a long paddling. [In Atlanta, I think] Yeah, it’s her bra that makes it for me.



If one girl spanking a guy is good, two is four times as good.


The next four pictures show girls trying to look intimidating.


The next one shows no indication of an upcoming spanking. But I sure would like to be paddled by her. She looks like a lot of fun to me.


Two small breasted girls getting what for.


Motel room bondage fun. Love her enigmatic smile.



You think the blonde with her tongue out might enjoy a good time? You think the girl gripping her might know what kind of fun she likes?


I don’t expect any comments that anyone else that shares my unusual fetish. So it was an odd post, but that is standard fare here at OBB. Hope you enjoyed it.

If you want to know how Dallas (spanks hard) got into spanking listen to the podcast Never Too Old For Agoodspankin

Another Saturday

You have to give the Dems credit. They are doing what they do best – spending money. This time on a scale never done before.

The details are coming out on what the 2 trillion is for. The most used word is infrastructure. That is NOT what most of the money will be used for.

Mr. Buttigieg is one of the five cabinet secretaries the president has designated to sell the $2 trillion infrastructure bill to the American people. In an interview last week, he declared “there is racism physically built into some of our highways,” and that this racism was a “conscious choice,” not “just an act of neglect.” If this is truly what Mr. Buttigieg and the administration believe, the trillions they are about to spend will almost certainly end up going less to actual infrastructure needs than some as-yet-to-be defined measure of “equity.”

As for Mr. Buttigieg’s racist highways, he is simply repeating an old progressive article of faith.  These critics believe that the rise of the interstate highway system “prompted ‘white flight’ to the suburbs, while stranding poor minorities in urban neighborhoods disfigured by the highways that bisected them.”

But the truth is more complex than the progressive narrative holds. Flight to the suburbs started long before the interstate highways, as the rise of the automobile gave ordinary Americans the means to indulge their preference for living in small towns over more densely packed cities. Progressives have never liked cars, and it’s surely no coincidence that this bill allocates $165 billion for public transit and rail against only $115 billion to fix and modernize the roads and bridges Americans drive on.

The White House admits only around 5%, or $115 billion, goes to roads and bridges, while Politico reports that the World Economic Forum’s definition of infrastructure, which Mr. Biden cites—roads, mass transit, ports, airports, electricity grids and broadband—covers 37% of the proposal’s $2.3 trillion in outlays.

The other roughly $1.4 trillion includes $100 billion to upgrade and build schools, $174 billion to support electric-car production, $213 billion for public housing, $580 billion for manufacturing initiatives and so forth.

Ten billion dollars for a Civilian Climate Corps that’ll employ every Greta Thunberg wannabe under the banner of “infrastructure spending” won’t go over well. Nor will spending $400 billion for elder-care services, something demanded by the Service Employees International Union, which endorsed Mr. Biden in the primaries. We love grandma and grandpa, but they’re not infrastructure.