Drug War

Reason Morning Links: Abortion, Cocaine, and the Pledge of Allegiance

|

• The president wants to subsidize exports more heavily.

• Those anti-abortion Democrats won't be switching their votes on the health bill.

• The Senate Judiciary Committee votes to reduce, but not eliminate, the crack/powder sentencing disparity.

• A federal appeals court rejects the argument that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

• Traffic fines and sobriety checkpoints become increasingly conspicuous revenue sources.

• Seven patent lawsuits you should know about.

Advertisement

NEXT: Because He's Not Done Yet With Health Care, Has Passed Budget-Busting Stimulus, & Still Has a Few Popularity Points Left, Obama Vows Comprehensive Immigration Reform...

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The president wants to subsidize exports more heavily.

    “American taxpayer’s shouldn’t just be fucked up the ass to pay for my wasteful domestic boondoggles. They should be forced to pay for foreigners who want to buy crappy american products that otherwise wouldn’t sell.”

    1. Wow, I’d sure like to involuntarily donate more money to unions!

  2. resulted in a total of 6996 traffic tickets

    At least the amount is a palindrome. That makes my ocd happy.

    1. when they were pulled over the cops made them walk different numbers of steps;-)

    2. Walking a straight line is one thing, but how many people cannot say the alphabet backwards even if sober. I can’t.

      1. I thought that was just me. Honestly, I don’t know why it has never been used in court as a defense.

      2. I think the point of asking that is for someone to say “I couldn’t say the alphabet backwards even if I was sober.”

  3. [Wrt crack] The compromise was that Durbin would accept Sessions’ amendment to change the disparity from 100 to 1 to 20 to 1.

    Why not just cut to the chase and change the disparity to 5 to 3?

    1. Outstanding. Truly outstanding.

  4. A federal appeals court rejects the argument that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

    Not just any old appeals court, the Ninth Circuit. It’s definitely the end of the road for Michael Newdow.

    1. Of course it is constitutional. It is only stupid un-americans who wouldn’t say the pledge. It is American and patriotic and our duty to know it.

      1. Yeah, a pledge to the state written by a socialist for the express purpose of indoctrination, and a scheme to sell flags, that was never uttered by a founding father. Real American.

        1. I’m writing my own pledge. I expect you all to say it and believe it in order to be considered appropriately patriotic. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people appointing themselves the arbitor of what constitutes patriotism.

      2. Expose your idiotic biases much, John? Study up on the history of when and why that moronic phrase was added and get back to the class.

      3. Sarcasm alert! Please calibrate your sarcasmometers.

          1. Dang, really?

        1. I don’t think that was sarcasm. It’s John.

          1. I thought it was a sock puppet.

      4. “I pledge allegiance to the flag…” It’s fucking creepy having armies of kids say this each morning in school. I’d have no problem swearing to uphold the Constitution, if required to for military service, etc, but not to some flag regardless of who is waving it. If the American flag no longer represents freedom, personally I retract my allegiance. And the way things are going we may get to that point some day.

        1. Some day?!

      5. I take “one nation under God “as serious as I do the idea the we are “indivisible” and that “all” have “liberty and justice”.

        It’s all crap. I should have the liberty to not say it. That doesn’t mean everyone else should be prevented from saying it.

        1. The Pledge is referring to an ideal. Just like the national anthem, and the colors of the flag, etc. We don’t stop calling the country the United States just because states constantly squabble with each other.

    2. Actually, they rejected the argument that the phrase “under God” being in the PoA was unconstitutional. The constitutionality of the Pledge itself was not under consideration.

      1. They ruled on the constitutionality of the Pledge as it’s presently constituted.

  5. A federal appeals court rejects the argument that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

    Newdow should take his vouchers and find a private school that doesn’t require the pledge.

  6. A little while ago Obama had a one on one interview with some business news magazine or show where he argued that he was not anti-business; then he went on to describe the meetings he had with businesses that he favored. My thought at the time was that the guy is utterly clueless; capitalism isn’t about the types of firms or the sorts of businesses that the state favors. Capitalism is freewheeling, creative, etc.

    1. Since many here believe the federal government is staffed with incompentent people, why should we be surprised at anything stupid HUD employees does?

    1. I think this is bringing to head the question of whether the GOP wants the votes of small-l libertarians. Or even the libertarianish learners. I dont think they are going to be able to get away with getting the votes without making economic issues the FIRST (and 2nd and 10th and 20th and everything in between) priorities.

      1. They interviewed evangelicals that already supported Obama in 2008.

        Granted, Obama was attempting to make inroads with evangelicals, but these people are “the GOP.”

        1. Err, “aren’t.”

        2. I didnt realize Huckabee* voted for Obama. And I doubt Land did either.

          *He wasnt interviewed, but his complaints about CPAC were covered.

    2. Fascinating link, JL.

      1. Yes, fascinating. Evangelicals that already split with the GOP over climate change and “social justice” and supported Obama… are really, really not libertarians.

    3. “As far as I can tell [the tea party movement] has a politics that’s irreligious. I can’t see how some of my fellow conservatives identify with it.”

      Then don’t. You already have a social-conservative wing of the Rep party. Feel free to stay there. The Tea Partiers evidently don’t want to be part of that.

      “The tea party movement needs to insist that candidates believe in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.”

      Or not.

      I’m not sure which pisses me off more – “social conservative” reprobates who want to impose their will on others, or the pseudo “fiscally-conservative” reprobates who talk a good game and then spend us to obvlivion and beyond.

      Agree w/robc – econ issues first and last as a political message. The “social” issues just start chopping off sections of potential supporters…and, obtw, the gov’t shouldn’t be meddling in that arena most of the time anyway.

    4. Yeah. I’ve been watching the same argument down here. The Goldwater conservatives want the party back and the religious right doesn’t want to give it up. One guy was ranting recently about how if you don’t oppose gay marriage and abortion you shouldn’t be a precinct chair. The use of “libertarian” as some kind of a smear is especially amusing to me, given that every honest libertarian I know really wants nothing to do with the GOP in this area.

    5. Uh, look at the “social cons” they interviewed. A climate change activist, someone not aligned with the GOP over “social justice” issues,an evangelical turned off by attacks on Obama…
      They found some pro-life Christian liberals who don’t like limited government.

  7. Venezuela murder-rate quadrupled under Chavez -NGO

    CARACAS, March 11 (Reuters) – Homicides in Venezuela have quadrupled during President Hugo Chavez’s 11 years in power, with two people murdered every hour, according to new figures from a non-governmental organization.

    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N11226112.htm

    1. “The problem is not so much the criminals, but rather the government’s inaction and lack of policies,” OVV director Roberto Briceno Leon told Reuters.

      Chavez says he is doing his best to combat crime, which he blames on wealth inequalities caused by former governments

    2. The people of Venezuela have democratically chosen higher murder rates, so it’s cool.

      1. Now that’s Friday-funny.

  8. I can attest to the NoVa thing. I got pulled over two days in a row for not having a “safety” inspection sticker displayed on a brand new, straight-out-of-the-factory car. Both times I was given “warnings” – how nice of them – but it was enough to make me pay my $16 extortion money to the state to get the inspection done. The cops have been out in force lately – county, state troopers, etc.

    1. Both times I was given “warnings” – how nice of them –

      It would be illegal to give you a ticket. Legally, you don’t need the inspection sticker on a straight-out-of-the-factory car (if bought in Virginia, there’s no reciprocity, unlike with emissions.)

      See here:

      Do new vehicles need to be submitted for the annual safety inspection?

      New vehicles purchased in Virginia that have been inspected in accordance with an inspection requirement of the manufacturer or distributor are not required to undergo the initial annual safety inspection. Placement of an inspection sticker on the windshield of a vehicle will be at the automobile dealer’s option….

      The affixing of the sticker to the new vehicle will prevent the vehicle from being unnecessarily stopped by law enforcement.

    2. It would be illegal for them to give you the ticket (assuming bought in VA, there’s no reciprocity). State Police says so, though they say that you should get the sticker so you won’t be unnecessarily pulled over.

  9. Judge Carlos Bea [said] “The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded.”

    Wouldn’t it make more sense, then, if we *must* recite something, to use the Preambles to the Declaration and the Constitution?

    1. No one is required to recite anything, so I dont see what it matters what I choose to recite or not recite.

      1. Yep, those five year olds should be counted on to take a stand.

        1. Had a Jehovah’s Witness in my elementary school classes. He never said the pledge. I really never thought much about it one way or another, (I was sad for him that he didn’t celebrate Christmas) but it apparently made some kind of impression, because I still remember him when these discussions arise.

        2. Right — we shouldn’t make them read about Jane and Dick running either, as this may indoctrinate them with beliefs about gender categories. In fact, expecting them to vocalize any chosen expressions violates their constitutional rights.

          1. Plus it makes the wheelchair kids feel bad.

    2. Clearly it does not serve to “united” people; if it did, this law suit wouldn’t have been field.

      1. The Declaration of Independence united people but about 1/3 still supported the British.

    3. +1

      I mean the preamble to the declaration has the God stuff and is fundamental to our nations origins and ideas. It should be the natural choice for everyone…

      1. Good Morning Shit Facktory!

        EOM

    4. “”Wouldn’t it make more sense, then, if we *must* recite something, to use the Preambles to the Declaration and the Constitution?””

      Yeah. But consider the place you are most likely to say the pledge, schools. The place where your liberty and justice is diminshed.

  10. I was sitting around a table at a bar last night with a bunch of fellow reporters (mostly lefty, of course). The talk turned to traffic cameras and all present seemed oddly enraged — soon the discussion encompassed sabotage and vandalism and a group of paint-ball armed masked vigilantes to be called the Fucked-Up Deal Committee.
    A fulcrum issue, perhaps?

    1. It’s funny that the issues liberals and supposed libertarians can agree on tend to involve property destruction and undermining the rule of law.

      Indeed, I prefer traffic cameras to having a cop on every corner, and any true libertarian should. The issues with manipulation of yellow-light duration need to be dealt with, but other than that there is an easy way to make sure you don’t suffer at the hands that are not hands of traffic cameras: FOLLOW THE TRAFFIC LAWS. If you’re going to complain that that damned traffic camera caught you making a right on red without stopping first, find someone else to complain to because you’ll find zero sympathy with me.

      1. When speed limits are set at 85th percentile of driver speed instead of whatever maximizes tickets, we can talk, until then shut the fuck up, you dont know what you are talking about.

        1. “…with a capital T and that stands for Tool!”

        2. If you don’t like the law, you should either work to get the law changed, don’t drive, or suck up and deal. No one’s rights are violated by speed limits. Destroying public property is not the answer.

          1. Bitching is how the law is changed.

        3. When speed limits are set at 85th percentile of driver speed instead of whatever maximizes tickets, we can talk, until then shut the fuck up, you dont know what you are talking about.

          Fuck you. Why should 15% of all drivers always be in violation of this arbitrary law? How about it is a recommendation and it gets set at the maximum possible safe speed and leave everyone to decide for themselves at what speed it is safe to travel? There is no crime where there is no victim.

      2. Im okay with traffic cameras, as long as ZERO percent of the money goes to the PD, courts or local government. That creates bad incentives.

        1. I’m ok with promising everybody a unicorn.

      3. Indeed, I prefer traffic cameras to having a cop on every corner, and any true libertarian should.

        Of course, a True Libertarian prefers a night watchman police force that is not omnipresent, either in person or via video surveillance.

  11. A couple of Democratic Casandras. Interesting reading.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ailarticle

    1. Get that man a job with the TSAr, stat!

    2. the man claimed the incident on the plane ruined tainted his entire trip

      FTFY

    3. I was going to be all, who doesn’t love a nice scrotum, but the whole ruptured vein/bleeding in what should be fun-zone-only thing is freaking me out.

      1. At least they gave him some paper towels. RyanAir would have just charged him a hidden “bloody genitals” fee they always slap women with.

        1. I thought you couldn’t get blood from a stone. Ba-dum-bum-CHING.

      2. Dag,

        It was a flight from Montreal…

        “J’ai mes oeufs brouill?s!”

  12. “There’s a libertarian streak in the tea party movement that concerns me as a cultural conservative,” said Bryan Fischer, director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association. “The tea party movement needs to insist that candidates believe in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.”

    Eat shit and die, Bryan.

    1. Fuck the marriage part. But every libertarian should believe in the sanctity of life. That is what differentiates classical liberals and libertarians from leftists; they believe that the sanctity of individual (and thus life) is paramount to the rights and sanctity of the society as a whole.

      1. I think all libertarians believe in the sanctity of life — what they disagree on is whether unborns count as human lives.

        1. Then Fischer needs to shut up about it then, doesnt he? Or say what he means.

    2. Where did that come from? Politico ran a similar quote from pro Obama minister claiming to be an “evangelical”.

    1. When I see “backsplash” in a SugarFree post, I’m pretty sure its not referring to those tiles just above your counter.

      1. I’m surprised at how “un-weird” that link was.

        1. I have desensitized you, like a 10-year-old watching all the Saw movies back-to-back.

    2. This will lead to laws against sitting on the toilet “backwards”.

      Mark my words.

      1. Also known as the “AC Slater.”

    3. I saw this a day or so and wondered, how well does it handle projectile vomit and diarrhea?

      1. Ha ha, true story. But I used to angle my shits so as to miss the shelf. Also, public places seem to have more normal toilets.

        1. I used to angle my shits…
          You must be one agile dude, TAPOG.

      2. Thanks – that was some hilarious reading!

        1. Yeah, that was some funny shit.

    1. Kids these days… random old people used to beat me wherever I went when I was younger, the Wal-Mart, the grocery store, the hardware store, the park… just a bunch of whiny little sissies nowadays.

      1. It would have been great if he had been a greeter, too. Reminds me of the scene in Time Bandits where Robin Hood’s men hand out goodies to the poor then punch them in the head.
        Welcome to Walmart! Whap!

      2. This just proves that even as a child everyone could see you were a menace to society. I think your experience is atypical, just like all your other experiences.

    2. I love that man already.

      1. “He told us it was because they were unable to defend themselves,” Hurst said.

        Ha! What a weird old fucker. Gotta love Columbus.

        1. The kids that could handle it are stronger, better, faster.

        2. “…unable to defend themselves…”
          Just like Wolverine quarterbacks.

          1. Bet they start beating kids in Ann Arbor.

    1. Love that song. I have literally had all that in me at once. It’s nice.

  13. About traffic tickets as a revenue source–of course that’s what it is. Do streets crawling with cops really help much with traffic safety? I doubt it.

    One reform I’d like to see is for fines to either be replaced with something else or the money be directed to something other than the government setting the fines. Egad. Then maybe cops would focus more on stuff like, I dunno, prevention of violent crime.

    1. “”Then maybe cops would focus more on stuff like, I dunno, prevention of violent crime.””

      Becareful what you ask for. A SWAT team at your house because you bought a couple of guns after being laid off is some LEOs idea of violent crime prevention.

    2. Maybe all the fine money could be directed toward funding a city’s annual gay pride parade.

  14. It’s not like the Pledge of Allegiance is legally binding. Hundreds of American officials, elected and otherwise, pledge to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” without ever meaning a word of it. How many of them suffer adverse consequences?

    1. Right, it’s a pledge not an oath. If an oath means nothing a pledge means nothing.

  15. People sometimes look at me strangely when I refer to the police (State Patrol in particular) as “roving toll collectors”. But that’s exactly what they are.

    1. It’s so obvious that I’m surprised that we as a society tolerate it.

      1. Americans will put up with almost anything if “it’s for the children”.

        1. Fine. They can keep the draconian walking-speed-through-school-zones business, then.

          1. I loathe that nonsense. I guess teaching your kids to stay out of the road is too fucking hard.

            1. I can see some extra caution, especially around elementary schools. But I have to slow down just as much for the local high school. WTF? They should damned well have faster reflexes than me.

              1. LOL, the problem in school zones nowadays–where I live, anyway–is the “adults” driving their spawn to school. They’re such bad drivers that the kids would be safer walking.

          2. I got a ticket for 50 in a 25 school zone once. I had been driving that route to work for over a year. I had never even noticed the school. It was a 45 speed zone DIVIDED highway. I was on the other side of the divider from the school, there was no crosswalk.

            After that date, which was the last day of the month, I noticed a cop sitting there EVERY last day of the month. And rarely any other time. Sometimes the next to last day of the month he was there.

            I nearly got rear-ended a dozen times slowing down as I entered it after the ticket.

            Of all the times I have gotten a ticket, it was the only one the cop wasnt an ass. He actually seemed apologetic for giving me the ticket (and checked the box allowing me to go to traffic school instead of paying whatever the fine for 25 over in a school zone is).

  16. an earlier 9th Circuit panel that ruled the phrase [in god we trust] is ceremonial and patriotic and “has nothing whatsover to do with the establishment of religion.”

    Wow. What a load of horseshit. The mental gymnastics required to even frame that thought are astounding.

    Newdow is an annoying crank who happens to be absolutely right–god bless ‘im. Fucking with people’s religion continues to yield kafkaesque results.

    1. “”an earlier 9th Circuit panel that ruled the phrase [in god we trust] is ceremonial and patriotic and “has nothing whatsover to do with the establishment of religion.”””

      I’ve always viewed that phrase to mean, trust no one.

      Maybe it’s because I’ve seen a lot of signs that said, “In God we trust, everyone else pays cash.”

    2. Please give an example of anyone who’s converted to Christianity, or any monotheistic faith, due in any part to the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Motto being on currency. I counter that 1980s Eastern bloc-level mental gymnastics are necessary to consider either of these “an establishment of religion”.

      1. So a law mandating that “Hail, Satan!” be printed on all quarters(NTTAWWT) would be ok, too?
        Nobody would take it seriously, right?

        1. I don’t think that would constitute an establishment of religion, no. It would never happen because the electorate would go berserk.

          If the government wants to print “Tulpa is a fucking asshole” on every dollar bill, and then print a picture of me being sodomized by a dolphin and a camel at the same time on it, I don’t have any legal recourse. Just because you’re offended by something on a dollar bill doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional.

          1. But there is a big difference between printing “Tulpa is a fucking asshole”
            and “Tulpa is God” on the currency. (I mean, besides the fact that one is probably more true than the other.)

            1. No, there isn’t.

      2. Of course it’s establishment of religion. Not necessarily Christianity or one of the other competing brands, but religion itself. The government tells you that you have to say you trust in God.

        I understand your point to be that “under God” is a meaningless statement like 99% of everything religious folks say about religion. If it is meaningless, then why force children to recite it?

        1. which one? If you cant answer, it isnt.

          An establishment of religion is like the Church of Maryland.

          To see what they were preventing, look to Europe. The Church of [Fill in country name here] is all over the place. The Puritans were part of the unestablished churches.

          1. “An establishment of religion is like the Church of Maryland.”

            Under this logic, Congress could mandate everybody pray individually for 40 minutes per day to Jesus Christ. And as long as Congress doesn’t say anything about a specific church, its all good. Poppycock.

            1. Actually, they couldnt. They havent been granted that power in Article 1, Section 8.

              1. “Actually, they couldn’t.”

                Maybe in the bizarro world where Congress sticks to the enumerated powers. However, in the real world….

                Do I really need to go into the 7,000 different justifications that could be made? Or are you smart enough to think of one by yourself? Let me know.

                1. Maybe in the bizarro world where Congress sticks to the enumerated powers. However, in the real world….

                  Im pretty sure the one where they ignore the enumerated powers is the bizarro world. It may also be the one we live in, but I dont give a fuck.

                  1. “It may also be the one we live in, but I dont give a fuck.”

                    Fair enough.

              2. Also, if you simply change “Congress” to “state legislatures” your little pretend-world response doesn’t work.

          2. “An establishment of religion is like the Church of Maryland.”

            Makes you wonder why they didn’t just say that.

        2. I don’t recall ever being forced to read the text on a dollar bill as if it were my own opinion.

          And children aren’t forced to recite the Pledge. Once they get old enough to understand the content most of them are rebellious enough not to say it anyway. If you think they shouldn’t be encouraged to say something meaningless, work to change the relevant laws.

          1. In my school, we were required to recite the pledge.

      3. The thing that kills me about “under god” in the pledge is that it was added in the McCarthy 1950s.

        1. But nobody takes it seriously. So who cares? Okiley-dokily?

          1. New U.S. Motto: “God is Dead”
            Hey, we didn’t say which one, so it’s cool! And nobody takes it seriously, anyway!!
            Okaly-Dokly!

            1. That would be perfectly constitutional. Again, the electorate would not stand for it, so it would not happen.

              1. You’re a disingenuous asshole, Tulpa. The whole point of the Constitution is to ensure the tyranny of the majority doesn’t rule. Every individual has natural rights, regardless whether the ‘electorate’ thinks they should be protected.

                Yeah, the State declaring our entire nation to be ‘under gawd’ has NOTHING to do with religion, right? Douchebag.

            2. The Constitution only prohibits laws “respecting an establishment of religion”. As such, Congress is free to pass laws that disrespect an establishment of religion.

        2. If you didn’t say it, you were a red!

          1. ….or a religious freak like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused to say the pledge.

    3. nah – it’s just an “activist judge” who’s actively making active christians moer active.

      which’ll help with the metabolic disorders, too.

  17. Well timed traffic revenue article. My wife fought the law last night and won. It helped that the cop (state’s witness) was a doofus . . . the prosecutor wasn’t much better.

    If any of y’all are ever driving in the Austin, TX area, watch yourself while driving south on Lamar near Shoal Creek Blvd. Special Officer Doofy is looking to collect.

  18. I have always hated the collective hypocrisy of the American people, who apparently both want to establish speed limits that are way too slow almost everywhere (given modern automotive technology) “for the children” but who simultaneously want to violate those speed limits with impunity. Seriously, this is a democracy, if you want the speed you actually drive on the highway to be legal, why don’t you get the freakin’ laws changed?

    1. If you’re talking about residential area speed limits, go pound sand. They’re not too slow and most people (wisely) don’t violate them by more than a couple of MPH.

      If you’re talking about highway speed limits, they were lowered not for safety reasons but for fuel conservation reasons, and Congress has raised the national speed limit twice since the 80s.

      1. Whenever I read a Tulpa post, I hear it read in the voice of Ned Flanders.

        1. I gather from previous posts that Tulpa is from Pittsburgh, and if you have ever tried to ambulate around this place you will understand where he’s coming from. I don’t have as much respect for law enforcement and have thought about carrying a brick around with me, for windshields of cars that endanger me. I guess that is destruction of property, but fuck em if they can’t stop at a red.

          Give em the fucking brick!

          1. Bricks for red light cameras, bricks for reckless drivers.
            I can get behind both ideas!

            1. Give ’em the fucking brick.

          2. I would support bricks attached to the red light cameras to automate the process.

            j/k — that would be property damage.

            1. Air-powered cannons shooting bricks at light runners isn’t very libertarian, but it would be damn entertaining. I’d sit there all day, drinking beer, and uploading videos to youtube.

              See libertarians can compromise, politics is the art of the possible.

            2. I dont see the problem. Run a red light, get a brick thru your window. Only question is if punishment fits the crime.

            3. So, brick cannon isnt okay because of property damage. But fining someone is? But that damages my property too, in particular, my bank account.

              1. Brick cannon is way better. It cuts out the bureaucracy, just load it every couple of weeks with a high capacity brick magazine.

        2. Funny, whenever I read one of my own posts, I hear it in the voice of Dick Vitale. And I fracking hate Dick Vitale.

          1. This indicates a certain degree of self-loathing, don’t you think?

            1. You can’t stop me. You can only hope to contain me!

      2. For highways the safest seed is about the 85th percentile of driver speed.

        When speed limits are changes towards it, safety increases, away from it, safety decreases. Primarily because speed differential kills – the assholes driving the speed limit 20 mph under the 85th percentile are endangering everyone.

  19. This is why I hate driving in Florida. Half the drivers are doing 20 mph under the limit, half are doing 20 mph over.

    1. With that split, over is the 85th percentile. 🙂

      Which is what I drove in S Fla back in January.

  20. I saw we pass a law to the return the Pledge of allegience back to it’s original form.

  21. Therefore I introduce the Pledge of Allegience Restoration Act of 2010.

    Your not against restoring the Pledge are you?

    1. I’m against commies like you. Better dead than red.

      1. For me or Trickytrotsky?

        1. For Tricksky Vickov.

          1. Dang! One more point and I get my decoder ring. Gotta go practice being pithy, be back later.

            1. Do svidaniya …

  22. Whenever I read a Tulpa post, I hear it read in the voice of Ned Flanders.

    Why do you hate Ned Flanders, Citizen?

  23. The following SUMMARIES OF OVER 1400 JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES CRIMINAL and CIVIL COURT CASES will provide the BEST and MOST ACCURATE info about Jehovah’s Witnesses, their beliefs, and how they ACTUALLY practice such day to day.

    The following website summarizes 900 court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah’s Witness Parents, including 400 cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children, as well as nearly 400 CRIMINAL cases — most involving MURDERS:

    DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES

    jwdivorces.bravehost.com

    The following website summarizes over 500 lawsuits filed by Jehovah’s Witnesses against their Employers, incidents involving problem JW Employees, and other secret JW “history” court cases:

    EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH’S WITNESS EMPLOYEES

    jwemployees.bravehost.com

  24. http://www.brand-area.com

    w w w brand-area com

    w w w .brand-area. com

    w w w .brand-area. com

    w w w .brand-area. com
    w w w.brand-area.c o m,it is a nice online community,there are sneakers,nfl,jersey,brand products,they are very nice,and price is cheap.now they are promotion,so cheaper.

  25. Lets advertise the Air Yeezy begin. After Nike active Kanye West to a accord to absolution a signature shoe, Mr. West became the aboriginal non-athlete to get a Nike model. Lifestyle and ability accumulated with sport, but it didn’t feel like a abruptness to any who were accustomed with the sneaker game. After all, hip-hop and basketball accept been about abutting at the hip back the birth of the agreeable culture. So back the three Air Yeezy shoes colorways dropped, sneaker fans, music fans, cultural icons, and abounding in amid clamored for the bound copy releases.

  26. Thanks for your sharing it with us,i will appriciate it.

  27. As the American local fashion brand, Coach Handbags and has successfully expanded its popularity into the worldwide.You see each of the Coach Bags is unique and charming with best quality and classic styles.Different people may adore different style of bags, because different brand bags have their different unique styles and characters. Coach has its own unique styles and attractive characters for the customers and are well-liked that are quite suitable for women. The high quality and exquisite craft have a good reputation in female consumers. To be sure, Coach Brand is one of the most popular fashion brands, which has good reputation in U.S market. And the Coach Bags are the most popular brand bags from Coach outlet stores.Coach has built good reputation in the market. are the most famous luxury brand bags in the world.
    If you have a plan to buy a bag from, you should first see the quality of the bag very carefully. There is a difference between real and fake. And these can be recognized. Discerning consumers soon began to seek out the high standards of workmanship.Most women choose this Coach Factory Outlet for many reasons. Firstly, that can make you full of jazz mood. It shows that you are a lover of beautiful things, and you are a real girly girl in the fashion world. Secondly,Coach wallets roses are very popular among the majority in the cabinet. They can help to show your feminine well with dresses that you wear at work.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.