Food Policy

Maine Voters To Decide on Constitutional 'Right to Food'

Language regarding seed exchanges could violate contracts.

|

Maine voters are set to decide this fall whether to enshrine a "right to food" in the state's constitution, the Portland Press-Herald reported this week. If passed, the state would become the first to guarantee such a right.

The proposed constitutional amendment, sponsored by Sen. Craig Hickman (D–Winthrop), an organic farmer, will ask voters if they "favor amending the Constitution of Maine to declare that all individuals have a natural, inherent[,] and unalienable right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health[,] and well-being[.]"

Hickman's previous efforts to add a right-to-food amendment to the state constitution, which I wrote about in a 2016 column, fell short.

The current proposed amendment is proving controversial.

Part of the controversy over a "right to food" is that people don't agree on the terms. For example, some experts define a right to food as "demanding that [one's] food be adequate, available[,] and accessible." Others contend it means a right to "discounted food." Either of those interpretations amounts largely to a positive right—basically, a mandate that someone else provides you with adequate food.

Others—me included—think of a right to food as a negative right—which means that people have a right to provide sustenance for themselves and others free of government interference. In May, as Maine's House of Representatives greenlit sending the right-to-food amendment to voters, State Rep. Margaret O'Neil (D-Biddeford), a supporter of the bill, told Maine Public Radio that to her the bill recognizes that "[f]ood is foundational to life and food freedom is really the freedom to grow, prepare[,] and consume food." Rep. O'Neil's thinking about a right to food tracks closely with my own. (I typically define food freedom as a person's right to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and/or drink the foods of their own choosing.)

But the chief controversy over the ballot measure involves the language of the proposed amendment, and the likelihood that it will spur a host of court challenges—a prospect everyone seems to agree on. Indeed, while critics contend the amendment could spur litigation, supporters do, too. Both Sen. Hickman and a GOP colleague who supports the bill— State Rep. Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor)—note they expect pushback from corporate farming interests. In this way, both critics and supporters of the right-to-food amendment are correct.

While I love the language in the ballot measure and think it would likely improve any state constitution to which it was added (though I would improve upon it further, including by ending the text after the word "choosing"), that's not the language that would in fact be added to the state constitution if Maine voters approve the measure.

In fact, if approved, the state constitution would be amended to declare—I've italicized a portion of the pertinent text of the proposed amendment to indicate how it differs from the language in the ballot question—that "[a]ll individuals have a natural, inherent[,] and unalienable right to food, including the right to save and exchange seeds and the right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being[.]"

In 2016, Andy O'Brien, then-editor of Maine's Free Press, cautioned that the proposed amendment, which contained similar language pertaining to seeds as is found in the current version, could bump up against contracts signed by Maine farmers that protect the intellectual property rights of makers of seeds—particularly GMO seeds. Notably, Maine's state constitution—like the U.S. Constitution—prohibits the passage of laws that "impair[] the obligation of contracts."

As I explained in my 2016 column, language creating a right to save and exchange seeds is highly problematic because it would likely impair existing contractual obligations. "The issue with saving [or exchanging] seeds arises when a farmer voluntarily signs a contract that says he won't do so, as many seed contracts offered by GMO producers do," I wrote. "The seed language therefore would make it difficult for Mainers to do business with GMO seed producers. And that may have been the point of the controversial language."

After all, Sen. Hickman, the amendment's sponsor, is an organic farmer who—by definition—does not utilize GMO seeds on his farm. In that context, it's difficult to see how the seed language is anything but an attempt to target GMO seed makers and to evict their crops from Maine entirely.

"Ultimately, Maine's constitutional amendment could have impaired basic freedom of contract and led to the amendment's death in court," I concluded, of the failed 2016 effort. "That would have made it a setback for food freedom."

In that same column, I called the proposed right-to-food amendment "mostly great." The current version is, too. Sadly, though, it still contains language that impairs the ability of Maine farmers to engage in voluntary contracts with seed makers. To me, that's a fatal flaw

NEXT: Who Gets To Decide the Truth?

Food Policy Food Freedom Maine Agriculture

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.

Please to post comments

110 responses to “Maine Voters To Decide on Constitutional 'Right to Food'

  1. Incels want to know, what about THEIR rights to “donate” seeds to babes who may or may not want their seeds? Who might really actually WANT those seeds, but THINK that they DON’T, due to “false consciousness”? As long as their seeds aren’t GMOs owned by Monsanto, we have to respect the incels’ “rights”, right?

    1. I’m not quite sure but I think SQRLSY is advertising blow jobs.
      Also, is incel the lefty version of “cuck”?

      1. And here I thought that all of the right-wing wing-nuts were UP on ALL of these kinds of things! According to their posts right HERE, they are universal experts on EVERYTHING! Yet here, now, poor little ol’ me, mere pipsqueak, pig-ignernt libertarian, has to EDUMACATE y’all!

        OK, so here ya go… An “incel” is a quantum unit which creates “incelleration”. If you create enough incelleration for long enough, one can (with advanced tech) attain TWICE the speed of light!!! This is according to an INFALLIBLE news source beloved of right-wing wing-nuts, which is Fox News.

        Sad to sad, the Rooskies have the drop on us more-right-thinking Americans, on this “tech”, with totally obliverous and obliterate-us implications…

        https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-fox-news-twice-the-speed-of-light-20210722-wchthwu7wfgktjjnok6izm7kpm-story.html

        1. Upon re-reading the report about Fox News reporting… I hang my head in utter astonishment and shame, and admit… PREPARE yourselves now, sit DOWN before reading this… Fox News was reporting FAKE NEWS!

          Now I am QUITE sure that ALL of the right-wing MARXIST wing-nuts (especially those who are enemies of Section 230; proponents of nationalizing wrong-thinking media outlets and web sites) will scream loudly, for Government Almighty to TAKE OVER Fox News!

          1. spastic flag

          2. So you’re offering Marxist blowjobs to incels on Fox News?

            1. So Bill O’Reilly, Tucker Carlson, and Brian Kilmede are Incels?

              1. Depends if Sqrlsy want’s to suck their dicks or not, from what I gather.

                1. I think he would rather eat their shit.

                  1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65000 to $70000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.
                    You can check it out here…—–> READ MORE

        2. fucking spastic is off his meds.

          1. A pity it won’t be fatal.

      2. “Blowjobs by progs? I’ve had the Amsuck one, the Blowny one, the Queen Swallowmantha one as well as the SQRLSY One. While progs may be notoriously poor tippers most seem to quite relish receiving a tip. The bigger the better.”
        Even a blind Squirrel occasionally finds a nut.

        1. Math problem statement: Russian Hero of the People fighter-pilot Chumpy Chump gets into Chump’s X-Wing Stealth fighter and departs Moscow, travelling straight towards NY City via the “great circle” route, at 1640 local military time, incellerating at 666 time square-root-of-negative-one (an imaginary number) pelvic thrusts per second. The fighter is destroyed by an American hyper sonic missile over NY city (the Americans apologize, saying that they did NOT know that the fighter was invisible).

          Math problem question: What was the color of the brown pants-shitting that Major Chumpy Chump emitted into Chump’s flight suit, picoseconds before Chump’s unfortunate demise?

          1. Did you mean hydrosonic?

            1. I’m not really sure… I am told, though, that the Sonic Hedgehog uses the Hydrosonic Pro… https://curaprox.us/info/sonic-toothbrushes/hydrosonic-pro

              (As a fresh military recruit, subjected to senseless hazing, the Sonic Hedgehog was forced to clean the entire new Russian X-Wing fighter… With a Hydrosonic Pro!)

          2. Admit you like receiving your SQUEARL necklaces. The Church of SQUEARL turns out to be a glory hole.

            1. ZZ Top says, “That’s what I’m singin’ about!”

              Every girl that gets a good look at The Squirrel says…

              I wanna Squirrel necklace…
              I wanna Squirrel necklace…

              1. “Squirrel’s got eggzz, and he knows how to chew them.”

              2. Remember to shave your chin because I don’t want beardburn on my nutsack.

                1. “Squirrel’s a fluff boy.” – ZZ Bottom

          3. spastic flag

        2. Even a blind Squirrel occasionally finds a nut.

          I think our local sqrls prefers nut butter.

      3. “Also, is incel the lefty version of “cuck”?”

        With leftists, it’s always confession via projection.

    2. flag for the spastic

      1. I learn how to wear a specialty that I bring good luck to the speed of each tournament casino https://mr.bet/at/blog/freispiele/50-freispiele-ohne-einzahlung. As well as in sports, I appreciate my desire for new tops that open to me in the shortest perspective

    3. We need more equity in dating. No more swiping right or left. Dates will be randomly assigned.

      1. Not random. Assigned by trusted equity professionals.

      2. Wonder how long an account with all Cuomo ics would last on a dating site.

        1. Cuomo is pretty much all icks.

          So if they were on a dating site I’m guessing they’d be ick pics.

    4. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 4 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h… Read More

  2. If it is a negative right, why isn’t it written that way? “The right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health[,] and well-being[.] shall not be infringed”

    If it phrased as a positive right, the liberal courts will interpret it as such. I mean, they probably will for negative rights, but it may take longer and be more subtle.

    1. You are exactly correct. Saying that the right to food includes the right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing doesn’t limit the right to food to just these things. It’s an open invitation to the argument that the right to food includes the right to demand that others provide you with food.

      1. Resulting in fat jeff moving here and parking his fat jeff ass in front of a McDonald’s register demanding his food.

      2. After that, the State Anthem of Maine becomes:

        “Jump Down, Turn Around, Make A Batch O’ Lobster Rolls! Jump Down, Turn Around, Make A Batch A Day! Aww, Lawdy!…”

        Baylin Linnekin should advocate for Food Freedom, not Food Slavery!

    2. In all likelihood, some of the people involved in the drafting actively want it to be a positive right, with every consequence that would bring.

      1. Iirc when then Rep Hickman was working towards this there was a subtle push to use legislation to limit growing GMOs here.
        I don’t think he wants folks wandering onto his farm and just taking the fruits (and vegetables) of his labor.

    3. Cannablism? They’re going to have to tweak the wording.

  3. “….to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing
    what a sad testament to society that this sort of thing needs to be spelled out. It’s pretty much how people survived for thousands of years.

    1. Isn’t it? I recently started tearing up most of my lawn and planting vegetables and got chickens, but before I did it, I had to spend time looking into local ordinances and codes to make sure I wasn’t going to have and problems with it. Luckily, I live in a pretty hickville town where codes are fairly lax and enforcement is even laxer, but the fact that there are controls on when, where, and how you can produce your own food is ridiculous.

      1. Just wait until your neighbor “raises” 100-head of cattle in a half-an-acre lot right next to yours and your biggest part of nature become so many house flies you can’t see your own ceiling.

        I imagine your opinion will change instantly.

        You have looser regulation in hickville because your neighbors probably aren’t right next door.

        They need to get rid of the “raise” part of the Amendment because I know there will always be those neighbors who think grizzly bears make a nice dinner, loads up their back yard with them and then will be totally unable to control them.

        1. Naturally, all individual rights exist within the same-held individual rights of others. Yes you have a right to raise livestock, but not to let it roam and stampede on the neighbors’ property or create a nuisance of noise, smell, bugs, or disease which keeps the neighbors from using and enjoying their property. These are rightly matters for courts to arbitrate and decide.

          1. In that respect; I could support the proposed amendment with a bit more word clarity. Not that it matters; I don’t live in Maine 🙂

    2. You don’t know much about history do you?

      1. Yeah, I’m reminded of say, the feudalistic system.

  4. “Others—me included—think of a right to food as a negative right—”

    Based upon the content of the law or the concept in the title ?
    No one has a right to food anymore than they have a right to healthcare, etc

    1. That’s the point of his criticism of the proposed language. The rest of the quote is:

      “…which means that people have a right to provide sustenance for themselves and others free of government interference.”

      That’s the difference between a positive and a negative right- a positive right would say that people have a right to food, period, which implies someone has to provide the food for you. Linnekin velieves people have an inherent right to provide food for themselves, either buying or growing it themselves, without government interference.

  5. “all individuals have a natural, inherent[,] and unalienable right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing”

    Define “food”.

    1. It sure as hell doesn’t include mushrooms, peyote, edibles, abortofacients, or Robitussin if that’s what you’re thinking you monster.

      1. Where can I find a Robitussin plant?

    2. Well it’s obvious that “food” includes a universal living wage, reparations from the white patriarchy, zero-carbon energy, and hate-speech bans.

      “Food” and “infrastructure” share a very similar etymology.

      1. Now THAT was some “food for thought”!

        Here’s some more “food for thought” just for you: MeThinks thou dothn’t take thy “food for thought” far enough! PLEASE consider the plight of those who are short-changed in the categories of social and-or sexual intercourse, and THEIR rights!

        Here, let me portray for you, my idealistic utopia where we all have “freedom from sexual want”, or, the right to demand your fair share of free sex from the pretty passers-by. An ideal redistributionist society, if you will… As I put on my tin-foil hat, I foresee a future USA where you will have the right to have intercourse (social and/or sexual) with any passer-by that you demand it from, except, of course, the “public servants” (pubic servants?) who are too busy enforcing your rights, to have intercourse with you. AKA, they are too busy fucking you over, to let you fuck them! And we will have to sneak, under cover of darkness or fog or smog, from house to house, to have any kind of voluntary social or sexual intercourse, for fear of having “freedom” foisted upon us, if we walk about openly… Or maybe we put on a REALLY ugly, slime-dripping disguise, and take our chances…

        1. I’m married; I don’t have to worry about getting laid. I get sex anytime, however, and whenever she wants.

    3. Food is defined as a trans person’s genitals. You have a right to grow and eat them.

  6. It’s right there in the 9th Amendment:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  7. Is there a law in Maine that forbids growing a garden???
    What’s this political show trying to address anyways?

    1. Some I believe was pushback against Augusta taking a negative stance on raw milk and its products. There was a worry a few years ago regarding “public domain” seeds being patented and a fear of restrictions on own food production. But I don’t recall seeing any towns prohibiting gardens.

    2. Don’t need one. This place is one big forest. Unless you’ve cleared a bunch of land around your house, your garden will be lucky to get five hours of direct sunlight. Can’t grow much like that.

  8. Folks, there are only three basic individual rights and all others are correlaries or implementations: The right to Life, the right to Liberty, and the right to Property.

    Recognize these three individual rights, and you can have all you can eat or drink of anything you want. Don’t recognize them and the end result is stagnation, dehydration, starvation and death.

    1. ^Well Said.

    2. While I agree, I would amend your premise to say that you have a negative right to life, liberty, and property. Many today would say a right to life means you have a right to enslave taxpayers to provide you healthcare or a right to property means you should be able to have a housing or car for free.

      The need to codify specific rights in Constitutions is a check on government. While most of us would agree that the right to own a gun, for instance, is inherent in life, liberty, and property imagine where we might be as a country without 2A. Unfortunately we are at the point where many more rights should be enumerated otherwise governments will surely trample over our life, liberty, and property rights.

  9. Am I the only one who thinks the way this is written introduces some fairly glaring negative externalities? I mean an explicitly inalienable right grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of your choosing seems like it would require the overturning of nearly all game and ag laws in the state. Even something as basic as hunting seasons would be clearly unconstitutional.

    And that’s not getting into wacky arguments like legalizing the theft of food, or the minor problems that might come up with an inalienable right to harvest for the purposes of cannibalism.

    1. Private ownership of game species and domestication and breeding would be a better way to preserve species than treating them as public domain and regulating their hunting.

      1. How would”private ownership” and “domestication” of game species be better at preserving them?

        1. You obviously don’t know, shitbag leftie asshole

          1. Are you Sevo?

            1. Similar phrasing, but that’s only because those words accurately describe you.

        2. If someone owns them, they can sell them. And if they can sell them, there is economic impetus to breed them for fecudity and other desirable traits. Hence, they are preserved and The Circle of Life is complete.

          1. You can’t really control breeding for many game species without domesticating them which wouldn’t be helpful if you’re trying to preserve them.

    2. One’s garden is ostensibly on one’s land. Save for large land owners, wild game move about across and over many properties. Without the game laws the tragedy pf commons occurs.
      This law as I understand does not involve the sale of the produce. And that is really where the ag laws apply.

    3. Redd Foxx’s sage advice is a serious check on cannibalism: “If you don’t want to be eaten, don’t go where someone will eat you!”

      That, and the Second Amendment is another statutory check on hunting “The World’s Most Dangerous Game.”

      1. That’s a version of the old Groucho Marx joke. Both are good.

  10. I’m not sure I see an issue here.

    Sign a contract and you’re no longer allowed to exchange seeds freely.

    Sign a contract and you’re not longer allowed to speak freely (non-disclosure agreement).

    In both cases you have a ‘right’ to do something that you voluntarily allow other people to constrain in some way in exchange for something else.

    Don’t sign the contract and you can exchange and re-use seeds as you see fit – and a GMO supplier won’t sell to you.

    1. IMO the real problem with the wording is the ‘ . . . and consume the food of their choosing’.

      This makes its sound like you have the ‘right’ to just take any food you want to eat.

      If it had been worded something like ‘the government will not infringe upon/interfere with a citizen’s access to food of their choosing’. Though I guess that could still be interpreted as preventing police from stopping food thieves.

      1. “Hey, I’m just *choosing* to eat this caviar and really expensive cheese.”

      2. No court would interpret it that way, because then nobody would have a practical right to food. Same reason I wouldn’t be afraid any of it would be interpreted as a positive right, because since no limits are mentioned, it would have to mean any food one wanted, and no court is going to understand it that way, because then everybody would be required to supply all the food of any kind that everyone else could eat. Being a reduction to absurdity, that proves that the language is not meant to be read that way.

      3. Sign a contract and you’re no longer allowed to exchange seeds freely.

        Yes. The issue with GMO seed centers on farmers selling this years production (soybeans) to farmers next year. Soybean are not Hybridized. So a variety you produce this year will be exactly the same seed the retailers will sell next year, except the retailers pay a fee for the Trait every year. That means a bag of beans that would sell for $10 now has the trait fee added that moves the price to $50.
        So the exchange(sell?) is the problem. But as a previous comment noted, When you buy the original seed, you sign an contract and agree to not exchange seed.

    2. Yeah, in order to impair the contract it would have to demand that farmers do the things that the contracts forbid.

    3. Contracts, contracts, and MORE contracts!

      MORE “food for thought” though: Can contracts legally cover THIS? (Below).

      Apparently, one does not have the “personal freedom” to contractually allow oneself to be killed and eaten. This has been legally established now, in Germany, at least.

      See http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/04/germany.lukeharding … Names were Meiwes and Brandes… Legal consent was all drawn up. “Victim of cannibal agreed to be eaten”… That eats me up pretty badly!

      But you know those Germans! They have a bad history of sometimes strangely restricting your personal freedoms!

      1. Dammit, why did I read that.

        1. Because you’re a dumbass.

      2. Contracts, by their nature require life and free will by the contractors and a finite time element. This contract would be no more valid than a right to sell one’s self into lifetime slavery. German has nothing to do with it.

    4. When people start buying and selling DIY GMO kits, such contracts will most likely be rendered moot.

    5. The issue is that for some people, private contracts are meaningless when convenient, especially if they restrict what people can do and say. For many of those people, only government is supposed to do those things.

  11. People don’t want chickens being raised next door, and they don’t want to know how sausages are made. Neither do they want you growing corn if you live next door to them. Those kind of folks probably also espouse every kind of social progressiveism (or would “progressive socialism” be more accurate?) as long as no one who has a different skin color or ethnic heritage moves into their neighborhood. They’re most commonly referred to as “NIMBY’s,” i.e. “not in my backyard.”

  12. Among the alarmingly large number of ways idiot Republican zealots have harmed the people of the United States, they made them morbidly obese on a vast scale thanks largely to the influence of the sugar lobby. Remember when they told you that the key to losing weight was cutting out dietary fat? They took you for an idiot on that one, huh? Remember when a bowl full of sugar was called “healthy oats”? Remember when ketchup was a vegetable?

    A right to food is almost too basic to be a novel idea. What we need is a right to be free of psychotic idiots. That’s the real problem of democracy.

    1. Careful talking about obesity like it’s a bad thing, Tony. After all, Black bodies are the most likely to be obese. And as you undoubtedly learned in college, criticizing anything associated with dark skin — Islam, hip hop, etc. — is by definition racist.

      #StopBodyShaming

      1. Tony’s unwarranted snobbery often has a racial tinge.

    2. “What we need is a right to be free of psychotic idiots”

      Feel free to end your nasty oxygen habit anytime, leftie shit.

    3. Well the New Dealers were the ones who brought us agricultural price supports to pay sugar and wheat farmers to keep their prices up and thus encourage them to continue farming the deadly stuff.

      And the Egyptians were the ones to call bread “the staff of life.” Why do you hate Egyptian people?

    4. I suspect (but in all honesty have not researched) that the papers supporting the food pyramid based on starches was largely put together by academics and bureaucrats all with a D next to their names. Capitalists with R next to their names may have paid for it, but it seems likely that the whole mess was collusion between the two side, all in the interest of their own power and egos.

    5. Among the alarmingly large number of ways idiot Republican zealots have harmed the people of the United States, they made them morbidly obese on a vast scale thanks largely to the influence of the sugar lobby.

      The FDA, Department of Agriculture, and their bad food recommendations are largely the responsibility of progressives, not “Republican zealots”.

      Republican zealots would like to abolish both the FDA and the Department of Agriculture, as well as their bad recommendations and policies.

      1. No doubt Republicans would prefer that PepsiCo market nutrition advice direct to consumers, and fund all the scientific research as well.

  13. Biden’s approval rating drops from 56% in June down to 50%
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2021/07/24/new-poll-spells-trouble-for-biden-with-record-low-popularity-n2593060

    But 90% of Democrats still approve of Biden’s performance.
    How pathetic. Biden now resembles Bernie in the hilarious movie Weekend at Bernie’s.

  14. Stupid Mainers!

    Or is it Mainerites?

    1. Dumbshit TDS asshole doesn’t know.

      1. It was a joke. Fasten your seatbelt!

    2. Mainers to other folk, or in polite company.

      Mainiacs when with other Mainers, speaking informally.

  15. Has anyone brought up the SCOTUS decision that forbid farmers from growing wheat to feed to their own livestock? That govt power resides in the commerce clause?

    1. Well, but that was only *federal* government power. The states could have done that anytime.

  16. The addendum to the definition of rights that I learned early on and use all the time is that my rights stop when they occlude someone else’s rights. Thus the right to food would be like the right to property in general. I can own what I want but I cannot require others to provide it or subsidize it for me. (This does not preclude individuals or organizations acting in charity, but it does preclude the government from doing so. Individual charity does not translate to government redistribution because it involves taking from some to give to others rather that people or organizations choosing to give.)

  17. The amendment seems to contradict SCOTUS’s Wickard precedent which determined an individual has no right to grow their own food for their own consumption as it effects interstate commerce and there subject to federal regulation.

    I wonder if the Democrat realizes that?

  18. That this is even being considered is a statement of how out of control governments have all become.

    To be clear, I mean to say both of the following, so there is no uncertainty of how messed up this is.

    1) No, you do not have a right to receive food you have not purchased or grown.

    2) No, the state has no business tell you what you can and can not grow or eat.

    1. But it’s OK to grow food on land your near ancestors stole from other people as they wiped out their entire civilization on the premise that “Jesus would have wanted it,” right? We do have to make some concessions to practicality.

      1. Tends to be what happens to Anti-Military groups. Funny that I think of you Tony as a lefty Anti-Military fan-boy. Now; can we exit the 16th Century and move on?

      2. Oh my mistake; If memory serves correctly your mostly Anti-Border security… At least some of the Indians put up a fight; Too bad they didn’t have a national “border security”; the one think you want to get rid of.

        What’s funny about the left; They despise everything the federal government does that it’s suppose to do and champions everything it does that it has no authority to do.

  19. I have a favorite place, https://kamikajino.com/no-deposit-bonus/, where I can play in an online casino. In a casino, you can make money quickly and also choose a cool site. This is why I rarely lose at online casinos. I play in online casinos even at work)

Comments are closed.