Foie Gras Ban

PETA Sics Cops on California Foie Gras Dinner

Radicals team up with the food police to infringe on our right to eat.

|

Patrick Fallon/REUTERS/Newscom

Earlier this week, a small salumeria in Nevada City, California, was forced to cancel a foie gras-themed dinner after PETA, the animal rights group, sicced the local police on the popular local retailer.

The Ham Stand, which specializes in house-made sausages, cured and smoked meats, sandwiches, and other fare, opened last year in Nevada City, about an hour's drive west of the Nevada border. It's gathered positive reviews on Yelp and elsewhere.

The Ham Stand marketed the foie gras dinner on its Facebook page and elsewhere. The dinner menu, which I tracked down here, was to include a trio of foie gras appetizers and a seven-course foie gras tasting menu.

A PETA spokesperson says the group learned about the dinner and contacted the Nevada City police, leading to the dinner's cancellation and a police visit to The Ham Stand.

(Jason Jillson, owner of The Ham Stand, quibbles with PETA's claim that their actions caused the dinner to be cancelled. "I cancelled the dinner the day before the authorities showed up due to lack of interest, contrary to what PETA had to say," Jillson told me this week.)

PETA bragged about its actions in a press release, reminding readers that the group opposes human consumption of not just foie gras, but of any animals whatsoever. "[A]nimals are not ours to eat," the group declared in its statement. (Instead, I guess animals are for all these other animals to eat.)

"PETA hopes that the Nevada City Police Department's swift action will inspire kind people across the state to blow the whistle on any would-be foie gras peddlers," the PETA release adds.

Rather than inspiring others, though, PETA's tattletaling appears to be part of a concerted effort on the part of animal rights groups to harass California restaurateurs and food sellers. The San Francisco Chronicle reported this week that the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), another animal rights group, says it recently sent foie gras warning letters to several Bay Area restaurants and the San Francisco Police Department. The Chronicle also reports the ALDF warnings "may be [based on] inaccurate or outdated" information.

I reached out this week to Jillson, owner of The Ham Stand, to learn if he intended for The Ham Stand dinner to serve as a protest of California's foie gras ban. Jillson told me by phone and email that he didn't.

(There's certainly precedent for a multi-course foie gras dinner in a place where doing so may violate the law. I attended a protest dinner in Chicago in 2007, during the period when that city foolishly banned foie gras, and wrote all about the nine courses of foie gras I ate in delicious protest.)

"I did it to use up product I had on hand," Jillson tells me. "I legally acquired it from Sonoma Saveur. I bought it before the Supreme Court decision, when it was still legal. Foie gras is not the draconian thing it used to be."

California passed its first-and-only-state-in-the-nation foie gras banβ€”an embarrassing outlier I've written about time and againβ€”in 2004.

I wrote an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court last year, on behalf of Reason Foundation (which publishes Reason) and the Cato Institute, in support of ending the foie gras ban. In January, as I discussed here, the Supreme Court chose to leave the foie gras ban in place for the time being, while the case winds its way through the lower courts.

Though California's foie gras ban is a farce, that doesn't mean it lacks punitive effect. As Eater noted recently, those who resist the ban could face prosecution and thousands of dollars in fines. All for serving foie gras, which is legal to sell and eat in every other state in the nation.

Yes, I've eaten my share of foie gras. But I've also defended the rights of vegan groups and others when government unconstitutionally restricts their rights in favor of meat producers. That's because the constitution protects every person's right to eat meat or vegetables or some combination thereof. California's foie gras ban is abhorrent not because foie gras is tasty to me and others, but because it violates our rights. It's a case about freedom generally and food freedom specifically, not foie gras.

Vegans, by definition, must avoid eating animals. For the rest of us, animals should be ours to eat if, when, and where we wish.

NEXT: Not Even the Pope Can Maintain a Monopoly

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. I once started a campaign to get the local pound to actually feed dogs they were caring for. They were literally starving them to death and as a dog trainer who helped out at adoption events, I thought it was disgusting. A PETA attorney somehow found out about it and friended me thinking I was some kind of animals rights activist. That gave me a small glimpse into that sick, twisted organization. They have no respect for human life or animal life for that matter. They are just sick, violent, murderous people.

    On the flip side, the city tried to set up a sting to have me arrested for “filing a false police report” but I was tipped off by someone who actually was arrested and didn’t go down to report the abuse. Those were fun times.

    1. So the cops were fixin’ to arrest your ass for filing a false police report even though you were legitimately concerned for the welfare of some dogs that were being starved by the city? That’s government, folks.

      1. Totes legit. Here’s a fun article that gives some insight into the workings of the City of Houston. I would like to think that it has changed but I moved on to training dogs for competition and got as far away from rescuers and the pound as I could.

        1. Yikes. Knowing that’s how these things work in general doesn’t make it any easier to read the proverbial punch in the gut when it finally does make the news. I know there are so many cases and (perhaps cynically) I feel like that one was only considered for reporting because of the potential race issue, which would generate clicks. The assholes manage to be accountable to noone. Unelected bureacrats seem like untouchable bureacrats more and more, with the clever distraction of identity grievances being used to obfuscate the bigger picture which is the tyranny and corruption of local and state governments, never mind Federal.

          1. They get big heads because their degree with a GPA of 2.7 from a small state college plus some connection got them a government job barely in the six figure range and they think they have more power than they actually have. Stupid people who have a little bit of power are some of the scariest people and government is full of them.

            Volunteers at BARC actually sued the city over banning volunteers and won. I can’t remember the details but basically, a volunteer who is a whistle blower has some protections.

        2. I moved on to training dogs for competition and got as far away from rescuers and the pound as I could.

          I grok you. My experience teaching would probably had turned out better if I had taught in a school where everyone expected the students to learn job skills instead of a Brooklyn government run school.

          1. Show up, take the check, fuck off all day.

            It works.

      2. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

        click here ======?? http://www.payshd.com

    2. Why everyone is confused just join at home online job .This is really good opurtunity for home mom just join this website and Earn money by monthly check .So u cant be miss and join this site as soon as posible .
      Here what i am doo ?

      ??????? http://www.finestylereview.com

  2. I can do a ham stand. I’ll show you for 10 cents. You’re mom has seen me do it a couple three times and she likes it. Hint: it involves being naked with your mom.

    1. Yeah, sorry about those comments my neighbors made on my mom’s YouTube channel. It’s like she can’t post a video of you showing off your junk without someone making some perverted comment about it.

  3. Foie gras has kind of a weird political bad faith stink around it where there’s a number of people who like to mention how much they eat it as often as possible and how much they like it kind of in the same fashion as the identity vegans like to tell everyone how they are vegan as if it’s the most interesting thing about them.

    As if you can’t just enjoy foie gras, or be vegan, or whatever, without announcing it for attention and to provoke a reaction. I have a foie gras-loving friend like that who likes to talk about all the things he’s seen Anthony Bourdain (RIP) eat and has subsequently tried himself mostly to get reactions from people like he’s so extreme and cutting edge. That’s cool and everything. I can wind him up with polite indifference I suppose. I’ve lost count of the number of people I’ve politely nodded along with while they tell me how hard they are trying to be vegan for the past two weeks while a vegan friend of 20 years veganity (?) says nothing to nobody.

    A vocal attention seeking minority seeks to drive “the conversation” and they see themselves at opposite ends of a spectrum but they are all really lumped together at the end of a very different spectrum.

    1. But what’s the value of going vegan without signaling?

    2. I don’t see anything wrong with being excited about something you like or have been doing. To them, foie gras is exotic and interesting and to the people they are talking to it might be novel and interesting too, as it’s not very common in the US. At least that’s getting excited about having positively done something and sharing your experience. Talking about veganism is a snooze because it’s just pure virtue signaling. No one wants to hear about what you didn’t do. Now, if you want to share this nice dish you made last week that just so happens to be vegan by all means.

  4. PETA is a totalitarian entity: that is, you’ll do what it wants, no matter how juvenile the want, or ELSE!! Why in God’s name did the police even speak to them? Answer : The People’s Republic of California said so. The flight of corporations and people out of California is growing daily, and this kind of crap is part of the reason why.

    1. The people, with zero self-awareness, are just insisting on turning everywhere else they end up into C?lifornia. See Austin, for example. They move out of CA to escape the nonsense they’ve been stuffing the ballot box with for years only to insist on it elsewhere. No thanks!

      1. Did you know that “People Eating Tasty Animals” are NOT allowed to ID themselves as such? ‘Cause Fed judges say so!!!
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P……_Doughney

        However, under freedom of religion laws, Scienfoologists are free to call themselves (or their effigies, more properly speaking) “People’s Effigies Eating Tasty Animals” … See http://www.churchofsqrls.com/PEETA/

        PEETA!!! How about that?!? Go figure!!!

  5. Some rights are more fundamental than others. Unless the enforcement of the law threatens life and/or limb or it infringes on First Amendment rights, it’s OK to call the cops when you honestly believe the law is being broken. If it’s a trivial law and no one is getting hurt, you might decide that you’re too busy to bother calling the cops.

    There is a simple way to handle PETA’s enthusiasm.

    1) Join the Los Angeles PETA Facebook page posing as a newbie who wants to learn more.

    2) Spend a few months making noncommittal comments on their page to build trust.

    3) Tell them that there are street vendors selling foie gras in your neighborhood.

    4) Supply them with “the addresses of the street vendors” that happen to be the same as the addresses of drug dens and encourage them to call the cops on those “foie gras street vendors”.

    5) Duck like your life depends on it, because it does. πŸ™‚

    hmmmm This could be more interesting than that time I stood up for the proprietor of a sidewalk food cart near Ground Zero. Granted, by the time Occupy Wall Street happened things were … je ne sais qu’

  6. I saw a vegan talking somewhere say she still wears leather shoes, knows it’s hypocritical, but hey nobody’s perfect.

    WTF? The fact that leather is so useful means it’s okay to skin it off the backs of sentient, feeling animals?

    Animal rights people need to figure out some logical places to draw lines. “It’s cute,” or “this particular method of grooming them to be eaten makes me feel icky” aren’t good enough. The world is a much better place because foie gras exist. What good are live geese anyway?

    1. I was in Austin on business maybe 20 years ago during SXSW, and late one evening I was in the elevator at the hotel with a couple in the entertainment business, who were attending SXSW. They’d been at some event at a dance place, and they were appalled because the place had cowhide seats. They were legit angry because this honky tonk had done something bad to cows.

      They were also decked out head to toe in leather. Both were wearing leather boots and leather pants. She was wearing a leather vest and he was wearing a leather cowboy hat. They caught me staring at them in amazement at their complete lack of self awareness. I just started laughing, and they had no idea why.

      1. Come on, indignation is only fun directed at others.

      2. It’s not a new observation, but notice how they always throw paint on old women wearing fur and not leather-clad bikers?

        1. “but notice how they always throw paint on old women wearing fur and not leather-clad bikers?”

          I never thought about that before, but yeah, it’s true.

          It’s a corollary to the tendency of people to say things to people behind the anonymity of the internet that they’d never say to them face to face, say, in a bar. Because if they talked to people face-to-face like they talk to people on the internet they’d end up with a split lip, or worse. The propensity to attack somebody verbally or physically is inversely proportional to one’s perception of the odds that they’d end up getting their ass kicked.

          1. Or drive aggressively because they are locked in their car. If they acted that way walking through a crowded area they’d get punched.

          2. PETA doesn’t throw paint on fur coats anymore. The last time they did, one of the fur-wearers had a pistol permit and opened fire.

        2. It’s just like college activists attacking an old lady, but not a group of jocks. They don’t like targets that can fight back.

        3. I notice that you’re a liar Tony. So does everyone else.

          1. Dude, get a life. Do you seriously have nothing better to do with your time?

            1. *Narrator*

              He doesn’t.

              1. Keep in mind Tony is an admitted liar.

      3. In Texas, we would call that doing something good to cows.

    2. They eat bugs and attack intruders. They also crap a lot which is good if you have a garden but sucks if you only have a small yard. I’m not a personal fan of goose or foie gras but I won’t stop you from eating it.

      1. The golf course where I used to play had several geese who liked the water hazards. Pooped all over the greens though, made putting tough.

    3. As an individual that woman is free to wear and eat what she wants, and the label is irrelevant. Tony decides that he will police other people’s lifestyle choices by defining the rules himself.

      1. Okay so calling out hypocrisy is no longer allowed on Reason’s message board. Thousands of dollars in ad revenue, gone in an instant.

        1. Well, it’s only hypocritical by your definition. As an individual does she have to conform to ine rigidly defined set of lifestyle choices or can she not make her own decisions about what she wears on her feet? That’s the problem with labels like “vegan”. It’s the easiest way to describe a general set of lifestyle choices, but comes with an expectation of adherence to absolutes that really are a set of personal choices, not a dogma to be followed without question, regardless of what zealots might demand.

          1. vegan. noun, a person who does not eat or use animal products.

    4. Live geese have information about the quality of the neighborhood. If you approach a flock slowly, they will sit still or flee depending on their past experiences with the local humans. In a safe neighborhood, most of the geese sit still. In a dangerous neighborhood where people harm animals just for the hell of it or they are hungry enough to catch geese in the park for food, the geese will flee from you. Each goose will have a slightly different response to your behavior, thanks to neurodiversity, and you can tally the different responses in a mental population distribution.

      Between that and the evidence provided by the buildings to anyone with some background in architectural history, you can read a neighborhood in a few days. Then, by the time your flight leaves Heathrow Airport …

      Oh look! A rainbow! πŸ˜€

      Anyway, once you get the hang of it, they accept you as one of their own and form an honor guard around you.

      1. Birds are some of the smartest creatures on the planet. All are edible.

        1. Somehow you managed to lie about that too.

        2. I’ve read that while they are in fact edible, no sane person should ever try to eat a penguin.

          1. If you’re eating penguin, it’s probably because penguin is all there is to eat.

        3. Hummingbird tongues…mmmmmmm

    5. My wife and I keep vegan. It’s not a conspiracy to stop hunting nor pass stupid laws against eating goose liver. It’s simply a personal choice. On the other hand, a friend of ours has recently “converted,” and she, like many recent converts (whether religious converts, political converts, etc.), tends to be ? well, enthusiastic. This too, shall pass.

      As far as “identifying” as a vegan. Well, no, but there have been a couple of times I have loudly proclaimed to a circle of friends that “I am everybody’s worst nightmare: a socially-responsible libertarian, and vegan, with a gun.” I do enjoy messing with stereotypes. πŸ™‚

      1. I have a friend that went vegan some years ago and is off the deep end with it. She even trap bugs and releases them outside. Although she likes dining with me as I do enjoy vegan meals on occasion and usually use a dinner date with her as an excuse to for such. So,etching the her family and the rest of her non vegan friends won’t do.

        1. Yeah, I know a few folks like that. And I have been known to “catch and release” the occasional spider when possible, as well. On the other hand, I have also been known to show no mercy on houseflies. I do admit to a certain good feeling that animals don’t have to die just so I can enjoy a good meal. But I try not to be smug about it. And I certainly do not try to tell other people what they should or shouldn’t be eating.

          I also am very lucky that my wife is, and always has been, a gourmet chef. I eat better than anyone I know — and I mean GOOD TASTING food – not necessarily just “healthy.” Today’s late lunch “snack” is port-wine cheese on crackers (the cheese is made from cultured macadamia nuts), washed down with a good Merlot. Gee, life is tough. πŸ™‚

          When I feel like “slumming,” I take her out to a really good restaurant.

          1. Yeah, you don’t have to be some kind of nut to evict a bug or spider rather than smash it. There’s no actual rule, unless you write it, that says bugs must be smashed. I’ve shown quite a few click bugs the door.

    6. That is almost certainly all a lie.

    7. The way I think of it is if I have misgivings about the methods of a particular industry, then I can discourage those methods by patronizing that industry less. Yes, I could try to patronize it not at all. But, even if I fail (for whatever reason) to do so, this does not negate the reduction of demand I am exerting on said industry and its methods. So, sure, I can be criticized under my own standards for supporting those practices I object to. I don’t have to assert that it’s “okay” for me to determine that this is the extent to which I am currently willing or able to go to act consistently with my ideals. It’s simply not the case that one has to choose either 100% or 0% boycotting of a particular industry or subset of an industry. Every little bit counts. And most of us have some limits to what we’re willing to do for any given cause.

      1. Also, isn’t most leather taken from animals killed for other reasons, like meat? I mean, the cow’s already dead, and it’s not like it was killed just ro make a vest.

        1. Or maybe it’s the other way around. Maybe someone wanted a nice cowhide love seat and ended up with the meat so decided to just eat it.

  7. LOL ? #TrumpRussia denialists are clearly nervous this morning. They’re rushing to judgement trying to convince themselves yesterday’s developments have proven them right. Like this nonsense from notorious hack Michael Tracey:

    I’m not kidding when I say Mueller’s non-vindication could cause serious mental health episodes. People are so emotionally invested in this, it’s insane. I don’t blame regular citizens who fell for it; I feel bad for them. I scorn and detest the politicians + media responsible

    The only people who are too “emotionally invested” are Russia shills like Tracey and Glenn Greenwald.

    1. Speaking of the truly awful Greenwald:

      Mainstream Dem discourse on Trump/Russia has been in InfoWars/Glenn-Beck-chalkboard territory for 2 years now when it comes to circulating reckless conspiracy theories. It may be only a matter of time before the End of Mueller pushes them into QAnon land.

      The guy constantly ridicules what “mainstream Dems” are doing, while hilariously claiming he isn’t a Drumpf fan. When even conservatives like David Frum and Jennifer Rubin are taking the threat more seriously than you are, you need to rethink your priorities.

      1. Greenwald needs to either drink more or way less. What an insufferable know-it-all. His boy crush on Snowden put him on the wrong side of Russia-US cyberoperations and he’s been whining like a pussy about it ever since.

        MSNBC viewers have been given some reason to believe Trump might be perp walked out of the White House, but given that all the commentary is necessarily speculative (given the secrecy of the investigation), you might expect, I dunno, a little speculation during 24/7 political commentary and news. GG needs to change his tampon.

        Most pundits on the left have not been speculating wildly about things they don’t know about. They’ve been measured, often mentioning that it’s more likely than not that Trump won’t or can’t be indicted. This is just GG describing a straw man, which is all he ever does nowadays.

        1. You can’t seem to avoid lying no matter the subject.

        2. Of course MSNBC spouts garbage. It’s MSNBC. They’re just awful treasonous shit.

  8. I went to a vegan restaurant and ordered a mock Russian tofu nothing burger with a side of organic BLM, a bowl of Non-GMO Antifa, and for dessert a plate of range free illegal aliens.

    My waitress was a surly SJW type with purple hair and her t-shirt said “I eat pussy.”

    1. Hey, “waitress” is oppressive, sexist patriarchy!

      1. Please pardon me – a clueless yet oppressive toxic male of white privileges.

    2. The best sesame chicken I’ve ever had was made of tofu. Don’t knock tofu, but it does have to be prepared right.

      1. I have only ever liked tofu when it’s in Japanese soup.

        Years and years ago, friends of a friend had something they called “tempe”, which may or may not be what wikipedia calls “tempeh”, but I have never found in any store. It was harder than tofu, they fried it with soy sauce, and it was both tasty and had actual texture. I have no idea if I’d like it again today.

        1. a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf|3.23.19 @ 11:12AM|#
          “I have only ever liked tofu when it’s in Japanese soup.”

          Miso soup! Japanese penicillin.

          1. I’ve had chrysanthemum soup and other strange varieties there, with tofu in some. Mostly all good enough to repeat.

      2. Tony, you actually said something with which I completely agree.

      3. I love me some tofu Pad Thai!

  9. I maintain that rights are the obligation to respect the agency of others, and that obligation, just like morality itself, arises from agency. A comet hurtling towards the earth has nor moral obligation to respect the rights of others because it can’t make choices. Likewise, we have no obligation to respect the agency of a comet hurtling towards a collision with the earth because comets cannot posses agency. In other words, if comets possessed agency, we might have some obligation to respect that.

    We correctly limit the obligations of people with diminished agency to respect the rights of others. If the insane don’t really understand what they’re doing, we may not find them guilty of doing it. Children are treated differently because they have a diminished capacity to understand the consequences of their choices. We don’t find people guilty of murder for acting in self-defense because they didn’t really have much of a choice. The general rule is that diminished agency diminishes our obligation to respect the rights of others.

    1. Animals have limited agency, much like children and the insane. Animals aren’t like adult people that should be held criminally responsible for their choices to violate the rights of others, but just like children and the insane, we may still be obligated to respect their rights–because of their capacity to make some choices. Would a dog ever choose to be tortured to death? I’m not convinced that a law that protects the right of a dog not to be tortured to death is much different from a law that protects the right of a mentally incapacitated child not to be sexually assaulted.

      The question is whether force feeding geese goes beyond anything a goose would ever choose to do, and the creation of pate necessarily requires force feeding a goose beyond any amount a goose could willingly choose to eat in the wild.

      1. So, we can eat children?

        1. I’m not sure the prohibitions against cannibalism are based on the rights of the child. Laws against murdering them for any reason are about protecting their rights. Laws against torturing them are about protecting their rights. Laws against cannibalism, if I were defending them, might be about prosecuting people as an accessory after the fact.

          My argument was specifically about the ethics and legality of torturing animals. If I extended it into an argument about the legality of killing animals, it might be different or maybe not. As a libertarian, I understand that just because something is immoral doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

          It seems to me that torturing animals is both immoral and might be rightly illegal as my argument outlines above. However, it may be that killing animals for food (like abortion, lying to your grandmother about coming to Thanksgiving and then blowing her off, or cheating on your spouse) is immoral but should be perfectly legal from a criminal law perspective.

          1. I agree with you about cruelty towards animals, but I’m not convinced gavage is necessarily cruel toward the geese or ducks based on their natural anatomy and processes.

            This may be an interesting read for you: http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/12/th…..not-u.html

            1. That is an interesting read.

              What I was trying to outline above is the framework within which a law that prohibits torturing geese (or dogs and other animals) might be libertarian. It focused on the definition of our rights as an obligation to respect the agency of others, where that obligation comes from, and how it arises. If you can persuasively argue that gavage isn’t torture, then that certainly speaks to this instance–but still leaves the general rule in place: We’re obligated to respect the agency of others, to some extent, even when their agency is diminished as in the case of the insane, the mentally incapacitated, children, and animals.

              1. Really appreciate your comments on this topic, Ken. Thanks.

            2. I was going to try to find the link to that same article. It was an interesting read.

        2. “So, we can eat children?”

          Cannibalism? Or the kind of ‘eatomg’ Depicted in PB/Moneyshot’s links that Pedo Jeffy jacks it to?

      2. You should check out what they do to cows.

        There’s something oddly classist about what foods the activists choose to go after.

        1. Guilt by association with activists has nothing to do with any rational argument here.

          1. What are you in 8th grade?

            1. What?!

              1. I was making a valid, rational point, and you throw logic 101 vocab words at me. Tedious.

                Cows are quite arguably more morally problematic than Geese, since they are tortured just as much, and their farts contribute significantly to global warming to boot.

                1. Your ideas about the rights of animals existing or not relative to whether they contribute to global warming is morally bankrupt, and that doesn’t surprise since you only recognize people’s rights existing so long as they don’t interfere with whatever you want the government to force us all to do. Your refusal to accept the moral responsibility to respect other people’s agency is the very definition of moral bankruptcy.

                  Your suggestion that animal rights activists concentrate on the rights of geese to the exclusion of the rights of cows is inaccurate. Only an ignoramus like you could make someone stand up for the rights of a shithead organization like PETA, but then intellectual honesty sometimes requires us to point out the ignorance of PETA’s critics, when they’re as ignorant as you. I’ve seen PETA, alone, do plenty to contest the mistreatment of cows.

                  The idea that rationality is childish is probably the most childish thing I’ve seen in a week. You’re a morally bankrupt idiot.

                  1. I don’t believe cows are morally responsible for their contribution to global warming, but people sure are.

                    I would hope that PETA talks about cows as well, but to date I know of no jurisdiction that has tried to ban beef. That’s all.

                    1. “I would hope that PETA talks about cows as well, but to date I know of no jurisdiction that has tried to ban beef. That’s all.”

                      PETA’s primary concern is about the ethical treatment of animals–not global warming.

                      Why is that hard for you to understand?

                      The answer is that, as you’ve repeatedly made clear, you don’t believe anyone has rights that defy whatever the government wants to do. That’s why you’re, for instance, loathe to admit that Jews had a right to their lives during the holocaust–because that would mean you had to admit that people have rights even if the government doesn’t say so.

                      Again, your refusal to accept your obligation to respect the agency of others is why you’re morally bankrupt and it’s why you don’t understand a group that’d devoted to the ethical treatment of animals as an end in itself. You don’t really believe that people have rights, so why would you extend the obligation to respect the right of animals not to be tortured unless it wove into your authoritarian solutions to global warming? It’s all a function of your moral bankruptcy.

                    2. I don’t even know what you’re arguing. Is it that we can’t be all things to all animals? Okay, fine. It’s still valid to point out the classism, for lack of a better word, of animal rights activists targeting fur instead of leather and foie gras instead of hamburgers.

                      I believe that many people do have rights. They have rights because governments exist to secure them. I don’t have any interest in your sky grandpa notions.

                    3. Rights belong to anybody who claims them. Animals can’t claim rights because they’re too stupid to claim them.

                    4. “Rights belong to anybody who claims them. Animals can’t claim rights because they’re too stupid to claim them.”

                      So, sexually assaulting someone in a coma is perfectly acceptable in your book?

                      Rights are the obligation to respect the agency of others, and it is by no means clear that we have no obligation to respect the rights of those who are–for whatever reason–incapable of voicing their “claim”.

                      In fact, if someone is incapable of voicing their consent, you may have a greater obligation not to do anything to them without their consent. God forbid we were talking about infants. Yes, we all have an obligation not to harm infants–maybe because they can’t voice their consent.

                    5. I’ve already explained why you have such a hard time understanding that the right not to be tortured may extend to animals (It’s because you don’t even understand that right extending to people). Even apart from that, you keep making claims about how Peta doesn’t care about cows–which is factually incorrect. I just went to Peta’s website, and they have all sorts of stuff about the mistreatment of cows. You’re just making that up.

                      I dislike Peta for a number of reasons, but I don’t have to lie about them to criticize them.

                    6. No one beleives anything you say Tony because you’re an admitted liar.

            2. Here, let me explain:

              Ken: “Here is this general moral principle that I’d like to throw out there, in order to show how progressives violate this principle.”

              Tony: “But that principle can also be applied in other situations.”

              Ken: “That is totally irrelevant, the only purpose of the principle was to show how progressives are bad. Now go away.”

              1. “chemjeff radical individualist|3.23.19 @ 2:46PM|#

                Here, let me explain:”

                No fuck off and shit your idiot dicksucker.

                1. Hilarious. Did you make that up all by yourself?
                  That was incoherent even by your low standards.

                  1. Should he have suggested he wanted to import child rapists like you do?

                    1. Maybe Ken should have suggested that general principles are applicable beyond just trying to prove that progressives are bad.

                    2. “Maybe Ken should have suggested that general principles are applicable beyond just trying to prove that progressives are bad.”

                      This is like the conceit of a creationist who imagines that scientists work hard all day trying to think up new ways to disprove the biblical story of creation. That’s all in your imagination.

                      My post about what our rights are and where they come from stands on its own without any reference to or thoughts about progressives. If your progressives theory of rights–whatever it is–can’t survive the implications of that argument, that’s all on you. I rarely stoop to even address silly people like you.

                      In fact, I’ve never seen anything you believe stand up to scrutiny, and I can’t imagine your theory of where rights come from or why would be any different.

              2. chemjeff radical individualist|3.23.19 @ 2:46PM|#

                Here, let me explain:

                Ken kicked your fucking teeth in and you’re sadly tugging at his hem hoping to salvage some small shred of dignity and failing utterly because you look petty and small.

                /explanation

                1. Oh look it’s another member of my fan club. You really ought to charge rent if I’m going to live in your head for so long.

                  1. *slurrrrrppp*

                    God damn you keep those tears flowing!

                    1. What tears?

                    2. “What tears?”

                      Not the same kind of tears your wee winkie cries when you watch children being abused Pedo Jeffy.

                    3. You have the intellectual heft of a barmat.

                      *slurrrrp*

                      And your tears are delicious jeffygirl!!!

                      But you need to stop trying to import child rapists.

              3. Pedo Jeffy…….. did you get a break from jacking it to violent kiddie porn to come and shitposting here?

                1. You’re a twisted individual, Shithead.

                  Most people would have scruples before accusing someone not just of being a pedophile, but specifically, using “violent kiddie porn”.

                  When did you lose all sense of decency?

                  1. You’re the one that wants to import child rapists though jeff.

                  2. Sometime before he started calling for the mass murder of people with different political beliefs from him, I’d presume.

                    Notice the lack of libertarians calling him out for that shit.

                    1. God you can’t stop lying or crying.

                  3. Pedo Jeffy, slaver supporters of kiddie rape deserve all the pain and misery in the world. And I certainly do advocate for the destruction of those who intend to kill or enslave me.

                    Anyway, I’m sure you have a NAMBLA illegals meeting to host for your ‘undocumented’ predator friends, so I’ll let you go.

              4. Tony: “But that principle can also be applied in other situations.”

                Ken: “That is totally irrelevant, the only purpose of the principle was to show how progressives are bad. Now go away.”

                Tony has repeatedly asserted that Jews didn’t have a right to their lives during the holocaust because their government said they didn’t have the right to live.

                Tony has repeatedly asserted that Rosa Parks didn’t have the right to sit in the front of a public bus–because the government at the time said she didn’t.

                Tony says all of this because he refuses to believe that our rights exists apart from the government. Tony doesn’t believe that laws can violate our rights because apart from the government, our rights don’t exist.

                You see, you’re so mentally twisted around that you can’t even follow the arguments you’re criticizing. Tony isn’t saying that animal rights are an exception. Tony doesn’t think cows have rights–because he wants the government to ignore those rights. That isn’t pointing out an exception, you dolt. That’s perfectly consistent with Tony’s theories about how people don’t have any rights unless the government says so.

                1. Yes, Tony would have the government ignore whatever rights are afforded to cows in the pursuit of his favored policy to use the coercive power of government to solve the problem of global warming, and Tony would have the government run roughshod over people’s rights, too, and for the exact same reason. The reason you think Tony is pointing to cows as an exception is because you’re not very bright.

                  1. I see. So when Tony makes a valid argument based on your stated moral premise, his argument is to be rejected because Tony is wrong about a different argument based on a different moral premise. That is what you are claiming?

                    1. *slurrrrrp*

                      Thanks again for your salty ham tears jeffo!!!

                      I don’t know you manage to keep them flowing so copiously, but never stop!!!

                      Do stop trying to import child rapists tho.

                    2. That you still can’t follow a simple argument is telling.

                2. He’s a progressive atheist. They’re usually the worst kind of anti freedom scum.

        2. Tony – You should check out what they do to make leatherette

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp5eCxlDWHo

        3. You should stop lying Tony, we know you admitted it but you can change.

          Your disgusting underwear. You’re mental issues mean you’re stuck beimg a liar though.

      3. I’ve read a number of things that lead me to believe that the forced feeding of geese for foie gras is not as cruel as we are led to believe. Geese will in fact gorge themselves to the point of having the super fatty liver in the wild. They just won’t do it in captivity where they know they have a reliable food source. And while cramming whole fish down their throats sounds horrible to people, that’s really pretty much how geese eat.
        I’m not sure, but I think the whole foie gras outrage may be just some ginned up bullshit. Farming and slaughtering livestock just isn’t pretty if you aren’t used to it.

        1. “Geese will in fact gorge themselves to the point of having the super fatty liver in the wild.”

          I find that hard to believe. There’s no way they can get that much inside them as when they’re force fed three times a day.

          1. I don’t vouch for the veracity of this article…but…

            1. I appreciate that some geese may eat enough, given the opportunity, to make their tiny livers turn into pate in the wild. I’m reading at other links given here that the livers of farm raised geese typically swell up to 600% of their normal size by force feeding them three times a day–and that’s with a high fat diet that doesn’t exist in the wild.

              I appreciate that there may be an outlier pioneering farmer out there somewhere. If that farmer can get there without force feeding, then, obviously, that’s not torture. The question then isn’t whether foie gras should be banned but whether torture should be banned. I doubt the animal rights people have any problem with foie gras that’s grown in a laboratory either.

          2. I read an article in the NYT about a guy who raises geese and lets them forage to produce natural foie gras so there may be something to it. I’m not motivated enough to find the article but it was an interesting read.

            1. Again, the question isn’t whether foie gras should be banned.

              The question (in the argument I made) is whether force feeding should be banned.

              1. Actually, it was brought into question, just not your question, I guess.

      4. Acceptable treatment of animals is very subjective. If killing them for food is ok, how? Is it ok to drop a lobster into boiling water?

        Is it ok to keep birds in cages by themselves? Keep cats indoors? Leash dogs?

        How closely can chickens be confined? Is it torture to steal their eggs?

        Branding cattle? Chopping boxer tails?

        Then you get into the absurd questions which make the above ones look sane and even most vegans would accept. Ok to kill mosquitos or meat bees? Ok to hang wasp traps? Spray against ants or put out mouse traps? Neck-snappers or glue traps or water traps?

        It becomes intensely cultural and personal. About the only common denominator is that if you own it, it’s yours, do what you will, but few people would accept, say, purposely crippling a dog so you can watch it walk on three feet. How do you define that in law without opening up a zillions cans of worms? Oh, yeah — ok to put a worm on a fishing hook?

        1. And that’s not even talking about how plants are sensory beings and thus subject to moral scrutiny.

          The only solution is to slowly eat ourselves, limb by limb. On the plus side, you get to eat meat.

          1. Someone on facebook posted an article explaining how plants have heartbeats. All I could think was that plants don’t have hearts so, no matter how much you want me to believe the propaganda, they cannot, in any sense of the word, have a heartbeat. Besides, plants “eat” dead animals so even they’re not vegan.

            1. Even plants aren’t vegan… ha… I’m gonna have to steal that.

        2. How do you define that in law without opening up a zillions cans of worms?

          Easy.

          Keep the law vague, let the prosecutor use discretion in who to prosecute, and let juries of peers course-correct when the prosecutor is over-zealous.

          This isn’t that complicated.

      5. No. Wild geese eat like that before they migrate. Domestic geese have to be forced because they aren’t planning any long flights.

        1. Again, I find it hard to believe that geese could eat enough fat in the wild to enlarge their livers to six times their normal size. I’m not even sure they can find that much fat in the wild. What are they eating that has that much fat? I’m reading that they’re mostly herbivores. They also eat insects and fish in the wild. There isn’t much fat in any of that.

          Have you ever eaten duck or goose? They have very little fat on them. I was looking for a recipe to make sausage out of duck, and one of the main ingredients was chicken fat–because you can’t get enough fat out of a wild duck to make sausage. But they’re going to gorge themselves on so much fat–in the wild–that their livers will expand to six times their normal size?

          Color me skeptical.

          1. “Have you ever eaten duck or goose? They have very little fat on them.”

            Ken, I eat fois gras (and know where to get it in SF), but that statement is a long ways from true. You gotta wring a duck out after you roast it to keep the knife from sliding off the side.
            And there’s good reason; the fat is a reservoir of energy for the little suckers and is an insulating layer when they plop their asses down in that cold water.
            I have no experience with goose, but they are subject to the same imperatives, so I’m guessing they are as ‘juicy’ as duck. Turns out not quite:

            “Duck is a very fatty meat, especially farm-yard duck. It’s even fattier than goose. For that reason, many people just buy the breasts as they are the least fatty part.”
            http://www.cooksinfo.com/duck

            1. Have *you* ever eaten a duck or goose? You have to pierce the skin of ducks multiple times and cook them on a slow heat over a rack so that the fat can drain off. Geese aren’t much different. Goose is considered a fatty bird and goose fat is delicacy.

            2. After checking with the brother unit, what I should have been talking about was wild turkey rather than duck and geese. That wild turkey didn’t have enough fat on it to make sausage out of it.

              More to the point, a goose is still not getting enough fat into it in the wild to make foie gras like what we’re talking about:

              “Foie gras production results in the bird’s liver being swollen. In some species of ducks, liver size changes seasonally, increasing by as much as 30 to 50%, with more pronounced changes in females. However, foie gras production enlarges the livers up to 10 times their normal size.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..rged_liver

              Natural Feeding = 1.5 times normal sized liver.

              Force Feeding = 10 times normal sized liver.

              Foie gras makers wouldn’t force feed if it weren’t necessary to make what they were after. Long story short, there isn’t enough fat in a natural diet to make a duck’s or goose’s liver grow ten times its size like that and cake it with fat and they couldn’t get enough of that that stuff down feeding naturally even if it were around.

              1. What makes you think they have to *eat* fat to *generate* fat?

              2. And if you read that link, you;d have noticed the birds were being tortured so badly they developed Stockholm syndrome and came trotting over to be voluntarily force-fed.

              3. The guestion then becomes would a goose eat enough on its own with the proper resources to get an overly enlarged liver. Many animals will without being forced so why wouldn’t a goose

                1. Regardless of whether force feeding poultry the way foie gras producers do is an an example of torture, the general principle I was describing above still holds, which is that laws that prohibit the torture of animals probably can be justified from a libertarian perspective. I’m not saying that reasonable and honest libertarians can’t disagree about any one instance or the general principle, but the idea that we have an obligation to respect the right of animals not to be tortured probably can be justified from a libertarian perspective.

              4. One of the issues with “natural” foie gras is that it doesn’t produce as large a liver as one from a force fed goose. That’s one reason why it’s more expensive and apparently much more delicious.

  10. OT
    Musk is discovering how many people want his enviro-signaling machine if they have to pay closer to what they cost:

    “Tesla sales slump is hinted at in state data”
    […]
    “The data for California were even starker, with registrations falling to 2,198 in February from 15,429 in January.
    […]
    In December, Tesla was scrambling to sell cars before the end of the year because the federal tax credit available to its customers was set to fall by half on Jan. 1, to $3,850.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/business…..709808.php

    Yes, folks, we’ve been paying nearly $8K/unit to help Elon and his customers feel good about themselves. This ignores the amount that Californians have been pouring into the slop-trough for the pigs.

    1. Even better, the median income of Tesla owners is more than $140k. So a “progressive” tax transfer to the wealthy?

      1. You got it! Ain’t we generous?
        Ever get a ‘thank you’ from a Tesla driver? I thought not.

      2. Yeah, it’s really fucked. We are subsidizing toys for the well-to-do.

      3. It’s just more of the same bullshit, that government is manipulated to favor those with power and connections.

        1. Shut up idiot. It’s bad enough you want to import child rapists.

          1. You really ought to be more targeted. Making noise on perfectly libertarian comments is silly.

            1. Tulpa hasn’t made it to the pharmacy in a couple weeks.

              1. On that note, just how much are poppers going for these days, Tony?

                1. I do not know, but I feel that VCRs are thin on the ground, so maybe they’re hard to come by?

            2. “You really ought to be more targeted. ”

              That would be missing the point.

              I don’t tell you how to service Fleet Week orally, don’t try to tell me how to call Tony a liar.

    2. They get a lot more welfare than that when you add in things like carbon tax credits.

  11. Vegan influencer caught eating fish shocked her fans are outraged: ‘I never expected this reaction’

    http://tinyurl.com/y5nyyt7f

  12. animals should be ours to eat if, when, and where we wish.

    Plants, OTOH, not so much. πŸ˜‰

  13. Another cow-related story, yet again in Austin, this one PETA. Was there for a meeting with some lawyers and on the corner by the building that my meeting was in a couple of college girls laid out a shallow white plastic tray. These girls were wearing flesh-colored body suits smeared with red paint. Two of them laid down in the tray and a friend covered them with a big piece of thin, clear plastic (they left an opening for breathing, of course). They laid in this tray in flesh colored body suits smeared with “blood” while their friend stood beside them holding a sign that said “Meat is Murder”.

    Get it? They were supposed to be like a package of steaks from the grocery store.

    I wasn’t particularly persuaded by their demonstration, but at least I did get to see a couple of college girls in skin-tight body suits.

    1. Did you ask if they do private parties?

    2. PETA often goes for the sex appeal.

  14. Cenk Uygur has a really smart take on the latest #TrumpRussia developments.

    Let me be clear before we find out what’s in #MuellerReport, my contention has been that the collusion was after the election. I’ve said countless times that I don’t care about tweets sent during election. Hope Mueller investigated connections to Russia before & after election.

    Exactly right. Actions Drumpf took as President were clearly directed by Russia. For example, Tillerson was replaced when Putin no longer considered him useful at the State Department.

    1. Oh, don’t worry, OBL. There’ll be walk-backs and mobile goal-posts by the ton for you to parrot.

  15. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

    click here ======?? http://www.Aprocoin.com

  16. Some people become irrational about eating animals.

    Dogs and cats, for example, are considered delicacies in some circumstances but many Americans get irrationally squeamish — if not aggressively authoritarian — if someone wishes to treat a dog or a cat like a cow, pig, chicken, or goose.

    1. And you’re irrational abput people who are smarter than you. And Trump. But I repeat myself.

    2. Yeah Arty, you’ve exeressed your sadism towards defenseless animals here before.

      Even Hitler was kind to animals. You don’t even have that going for you.

      1. You’re a vegan clinger?

        Or just another unprincipled, can’t-keep-up clinger who eats Slim Jims, Hardees burgers, and Spam but goes authoritarian with respect to others’ choices in meat?

        1. “Or just another unprincipled, can’t-keep-up ”

          Ahahahahahhahahahah I took his “disaffected” crutch away and look and that steaming pile of replacement!!!

          Ahahhahaahhaha you’re my fucking property!!!

          1. AHAHAHAHHAHAHAH THE BEST HE COULD COME UP WITH IS “CANT-KEEP-UP” AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA OMFG AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

        2. Actually Arty, i have eaten a vegan diet in the past. For over a year. At this point I don’t eat a lot of meat, but I sure as fuck don’t eat dogs and cats, nor do I support sadistic livestock practices.

          But you…… you support cops shooting chihuahas, and I’m sure you’re probably on the supply side of abused shelter animals and murdered neighborhood pets.

          So don’t even pull your bullshit with me.

    3. Dogs are livestock, cats are wild animals. Read your common law.

    4. People only eat dogs and cats because they don’t understand conservation and ate all the other normal animal resources

    1. Is this the beginning of the end???!!!

      1. You might say it’s a tipping point.

        1. A cow-tipping point? You monster!

  17. OT:
    In SF, we had a tiger as a public defender; he managed to get some real sleaze-bags acquitted and properly so. As the saying goes, ‘My client is despicable, but he didn’t do what he is charged with here’. He was also an upstanding family man, beyond the shadow of any scandal. While he was a darling of the left, he was respected by nearly everybody (except the DAs)
    Well, not long ago, he died. In his undies in the bed of a woman who was described as “a friend”. We just got the autopsy report:
    “The San Francisco Medical Examiner’s Office released the autopsy report on Adachi’s death late Friday, one month after the 59-year-old public defender collapsed in an apartment on Telegraph Hill and was later pronounced dead at a hospital.”The cause of death is acute mixed drug toxicity with cocaine and ethanol, with hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease as a contributing factor,” Assistant Medical Examiner Ellen Moffatt wrote in the report. “Based on the history, autopsy, microscopic and toxicology finding, the manner of death is accident.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/…..710124.php

    A john with a coke habit; Robert Kraft should be treated with such kid gloves.

    1. I think I heard about this story. It’s pretty funny when you think about it. A real life Saul Goodman character.

      1. What’s funny is that thread where you lit every single oince of dignity you had on fire making a fool of yourself over Mueller.

        What’s not funny is that you want to import child rapists.

        1. Oh look, it’s Tulpa desperate for attention again. “Hey look at me!!!!!!”
          You really ought to find something productive to do with your life, instead of stalking me on the Internet.

          1. But then how would I get to slurp your delicious tears!!!

            *slurrrrrrp*

            Now stop trying to import child rapists.

            1. What tears?

                1. Did you hear about Pedo Jeffy’s latest crusade for illegals? He’s helping to sue the Big Brothers/Big Sisters group to force them to let illegal alien ex offenders volunteer. Since no one must be allowed to restrict these fine people.

                2. What do you think I am supposedly crying about?

              1. Go away Pedo Jeffy. Much like every other aspect of your life, no one likes you here.

                Sick fucking pedophile enthusiast.

                1. Buzz off, pest.

                  1. Never stop crying jeff.

                    *slurrrrrp*

                    But do stop trying to import racists.

    2. I found it odd that ethanol was described as a “stimulant substance[]” in the coroner’s report, but apparently at the low levels of consumption he had engaged in that day, alcohol is considered a stimulant. I learned something new today.

    3. I found it odd that ethanol was described as a “stimulant substance[]” in the coroner’s report, but apparently at the low levels of consumption he had engaged in that day, alcohol is considered a stimulant. I learned something new today.

  18. Stoled from tha Twitter: Mueller’s report has him repeatedly mentioning his 10-inch cock.

  19. Gee, can a border enforcement group send a bunch of letters to restaurants warning them not to hire undocumented workers?

  20. John Brennan predicts to Trump 3 days ago: “the Special Counsel will soon further complicate your life”

    “Hmmm…your bizarre tweets and recent temper tantrums reveal your panic over the likelihood the Special Counsel will soon further complicate your life, putting your political & financial future in jeopardy. Fortunately, Lady Justice does not do NDAs.”

    Yes, yes ? here’s President Trump obviously in a deep panic state on the golf course Saturday with Kid Rock.

    1. “Fortunately, Lady Justice does not do NDAs.”

      Oh, pull the other one. If you have money and right connections, Lady Justice will do things a street hooker wouldn’t lower herself to do.

  21. “animals should be ours to eat if, when, and where we wish”

    But not necessarily HOW. And not necessarily just any animals.

    1. “Sustainable whaling, sealing and market hunting”

    2. “But not necessarily HOW. And not necessarily just any animals.”

      As far as government action is concerned, yes, both how and which are beyond any government interest. Or, you can fuck off, slaver.

    3. God what a boring fucking parody.

  22. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

    click here ======?? http://Www.TheproCoin.Com

  23. I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?
    c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k >>>>>>>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

  24. What was the allegation of the law broken that brought the cops? I mean if I call the cops that my neighbors are going to eat liver pate’, and they show up, I am probably the one going to jail for wasting their time. Or are the dog shooting cops in Nevada City, California, really that corrupt?

    1. Its illegal to eat in cali. Note liverwourst is no longer called liver pate or liverwourst to avoid californian sensabilities

      1. What? No vegan liverwurst in California? How backwards is that state? LOL

  25. PETA is a terrorist organization and should be treated as such.

    1. That why I started PEDA People Eating Dead Animals, because eating live animals is cruel.

  26. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

    click here ======?? http://www.Theprocoin.com

    1. Spam, why doesn’t Reason do something about the Spam?

  27. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this ? four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE >>=====>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  28. More Spam, why doesn’t Reason do something about the Spam?

  29. Attending a foie gras protest party is one of the most libertarian things ever.

  30. You’ve been able to smoke all the pot you want in downtown nevada city for far longer than its been legal but dam you better not eat your meats. heck its even illegal to smoke cigarets but not pot. this town has become so f’up and last presidential election was the first time in history that the county voted blue.

  31. up to I saw the bank draft of $7781, I did not believe that my best friend was like they say actually taking home money in there spare time from there new laptop.. there uncle started doing this 4 only 22 months and at present cleared the loans on there mini mansion and purchased Dodge. this is where I went,

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.