Napolitano: I’m not comfortable with this Arizona law that I haven’t read yet
posted at 6:57 pm on May 17, 2010 by Allahpundit
First Holder, now this. Second verse, same as the first: It would take 20 minutes to read through the statute and less than two to read the key provisions that have raised concerns about racial profiling. But if you read it then you’re responsible for what you say about it, and we can’t have that with the midterms less than six months away. So here’s the deputy border-enforcer-in-chief admitting that she hasn’t found the time yet to review “in detail” an immigration law that’s been the talk of the country politically for about a month now. Consider this a sequel to my post about Huntsman and China: Not only is State badmouthing a statute supported by most Americans, but given administration practices, there’s a better than even chance that no one in authority over there has even read it yet.
Don’t worry, though, all these misperceptions about the law will change once the media buckles down and starts fact-checking the critics, right? In fact, turns out NBC News is partnering with Univision for an immigration special next week. What could go wrong? Click the image to watch.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Laws are always going to “ilk” someone Ms. Nep. I’m sure that all of the criminals around the country who are being held for laws that they have broken-whether murder, stealing, or whatever- are have a certain amount of “ilk” regarding the laws of this land.
CynicalOptimist on May 17, 2010 at 8:08 PM
Imagine if someone said this in the private sector. An executive speaking to a large group in public about something germane to the company and they say “I haven’t read the info”.
Wow – they’d be fired and shamed so fast heads would spin.
Stephanie on May 17, 2010 at 8:09 PM
TYPO:
“…to do their
moremost basic jobs?!?”profitsbeard on May 17, 2010 at 8:10 PM
Has anyone in the State department or their bosses in the kneepad media ever asked China why the Uighars released from Gitmo could not be sent back to China ?
macncheez on May 17, 2010 at 8:11 PM
I’d just like to pop in to remind everyone that I’ve read the law in detail, and it’s still ill-advised and stupid. And likely unconstitutional.
Many liberal and conservative legal scholars agree.
Carry on now!
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 8:24 PM
The adults are in charge.
Way to go all you complete f*ing idiots who voted for Obama.
WisCon on May 17, 2010 at 8:24 PM
Napolitano, Holder, and ObaMao are just spouting the party line. By this point they have all read the bill, but their claims of not reading it are just a stonewall to pointed questions. Meanwhile, in the back rooms they are scrambling like heck to find some legalistic opposition in order to tie this legislation up in courts and to use it as a campaign issue for the bleeding hearts.
The brain-dead media are too lazy or too invested in this administration and its ideology to ask any pointed questions and truly examine what the law says.
onlineanalyst on May 17, 2010 at 8:28 PM
No, lots of people have examine what the law says, and most agree that it’s stupid.
Just a reminder.
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 8:32 PM
Suuuuure, ya have.
Name ‘many’ conservative legal scholars that agree, with links, please. Thanks in advance.
Midas on May 17, 2010 at 8:33 PM
The other weaselly remark that Napolitano made in that video is her assertion that law enforcement personnel were “not comfortable” in the role of working with immigration enforcement at the time she was governor. My guess is that law enforcement personnel knew that they would not have her support in any case. The new law makes it clear that local and state LEs can work with confidence in securing the border from lawless encroachment.
onlineanalyst on May 17, 2010 at 8:35 PM
Ooh, now it’s “lots”, before it was “many”. Oddly enough, the only people I’m hearing say it’s stupid are people that are admitting they haven’t read it. Well, and a few nitwits trying to convince everyone that they read it, and that many lots of people of all political stripes agree with their brilliant synopsis.
Midas on May 17, 2010 at 8:36 PM
I think that before long the AZ law’s favorability will be polling at about 90%.
Akzed on May 17, 2010 at 8:37 PM
I am sickened by government officials of her ilk.
fred5678 on May 17, 2010 at 8:37 PM
I guess Holder and Napolitano are paid the bucks just to spout off on whatever pops into their empty little heads. They requested a “don’t gotta read nothin’” clause in their employment contracts.
ya2daup on May 17, 2010 at 8:41 PM
Oh, I have. Although admittedly, it’s been difficult to keep up with the law because it’s been changed and edited so much in response to reasoned liberal critiques. I last read the whole thing about a week ago and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve edited it yet again.
Don’t project your ignorance on me. I read it right when it came out, and I’ve corresponded with other law students and lawyers about it (including an immigration lawyer in the DoJ) as it’s been changed and edited. Virtually everyone agrees it’s probably unconstitutional.
Here’s Chemerinsky (a liberal) saying its likely unconstitutional.
Here’s Adler, (a Federalist society member and conservative) agreeing that it’s probably unconstitutional. Really the only law professor who I’ve seen consistently arguing that the law is constitutional is Kobach….and he helped draft the law.
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 8:42 PM
lol.
They’re synonyms.
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 8:44 PM
FIFY, crr6
BacaDog on May 17, 2010 at 8:45 PM
Let’s see,
This country’s Attorney General has yet to read the State Law
This country’s Homeland Security Chief has yet to read the State Law (and he was Governor of Arizona!)
This country’s loser-in-Chief has yet to read the State law
What this tells me is that the top Federal Government officials can’t read! something that says the Feds can’t/won’t do squat to protect this country. Alienate the citizens who pay their Princely salaries yes, protect us? Praise the Lord for the Second Amendment!
SeniorD on May 17, 2010 at 8:46 PM
I think crr6 confuses pop in with pop off.
“Most agree”
Geez pal, you sound like an ad for nose spray.
Is this the crr6 version of that famous line from the moron media we all love? “Some say”
They say that when they have nothing attributible.
In other words, nothing.
gordo on May 17, 2010 at 8:46 PM
1. You’re still using the weasel-word qualifier “likely;” so that, when it’s found to be sound, you can say you never said it was unconstitutional.
2. Name, and list the credentials of, the conservative legal scholars you claim are in agreement with you.
3. You’re not getting better at this; are you sure you want to keep playing?
massrighty on May 17, 2010 at 8:48 PM
Actually many even on the left believe most of the law will meet the test. You just spin and spin. Thanks for dropping in though.
CWforFreedom on May 17, 2010 at 8:49 PM
So, even your cited sources use qualifiers like likely, and probably?
Even your supporting documents are weasel-like.
massrighty on May 17, 2010 at 8:51 PM
CRR as I stated before …YOU SHOULD be more irritated the Obama, Holder , and Napolitano have not read the law and continue to distort. Seems that doesn’t bother you. You’re a lapdog.
CWforFreedom on May 17, 2010 at 8:51 PM
Asked for many; you cite one.
And, a weak one, at that.
Lame.
massrighty on May 17, 2010 at 8:52 PM
Thanks for the update, appreciate it.
ontherocks on May 17, 2010 at 8:53 PM
Well, technically I can’t say it’s “unconstitutional” until it’s ruled unconstitutional, because laws passed by legislatures are presumptively constitutional.
So it’s not a “weasel word”, it’s just the correct way to talk about the law until it’s challenged in court.
And now you know that! How great.
See above. Adler graduated magna cum laude from Yale and first in his class from GMU law. He’s a prominent federalist society member.
Ha.
Hopefully I taught you a thing or two, dear. If you want to learn more stick around.
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 8:53 PM
LOL. See my above post.
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 8:53 PM
No problem. You guys just seem to get a bit carried away if I let you play by yourselves.
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 8:54 PM
Now, you’ve declared a victory that only exists in your own mind.
I’m likely crushed!
massrighty on May 17, 2010 at 8:55 PM
Well, technically I can’t say it’s “unconstitutional” until it’s ruled unconstitutional, because laws passed by legislatures are presumptively constitutional.
What if it is ruled unconstitutional by a vote of 5-4. Is it still unconstitutional ? Lol what an idiot.
CWforFreedom on May 17, 2010 at 8:55 PM
I’m likely crushed!
massrighty on May 17, 2010 at 8:55 PM
Crr is just an obstinate fool. Here we have the leaders of this country lying and distorting and she worries about us. What an useful idiot.
CWforFreedom on May 17, 2010 at 8:56 PM
This post did not advance your argument; nor did the post you reference.
Why are you the only one who thinks your ripostes score points?
massrighty on May 17, 2010 at 8:57 PM
No, in this context it’s completely acceptable for me to just say, “you’ve been crushed”.
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 8:58 PM
Again, with the self-proclaimed victory. I bet you got a lot of “participation trophies” when you were a kid, right?
massrighty on May 17, 2010 at 9:01 PM
Heh, see my above post swifty.
ontherocks on May 17, 2010 at 9:02 PM
I object to the wasted screen space when idiotic mutterings from cc… take up valuable video real estate.
Ignore it.
fred5678 on May 17, 2010 at 9:03 PM
Yeah, it did. The reason the law professors use the same qualifying words is because, like I said, legislative enactments are presumptively constitutional. Technically laws aren’t unconstitutional until declared so by a judge. Understand?
You didn’t know that. And you thought you were somehow scoring points, when in reality you were just being laughably ignorant. Which is hilarious.
Anyway, it’s odd that you complain about me “declaring victories” etc. when you’ve contributed literally nothing to the argument. All you’ve done thus far is 1) asked for cites to conservative scholars (after I’d provided one) and, 2) made various jokes about using “likely” and “probably” when in reality (as you now know) that’s the correct way to talk about a recently passed law’s constitutionality.
Would you care to comment on anything Adler said? Why is he a “weak” conservative? Who would an acceptable legal scholar be? What are their thoughts on the law?
Or I mean, you can just snipe from the sidelines.
Who’s the troll here again?
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 9:03 PM
Considering she played alone she was her only possible choice.
CWforFreedom on May 17, 2010 at 9:04 PM
What was the line on SNL? Oh yeah, “Jane, you ignorant slut.” I propose this as the response to crr6 on whatever topic she decides to troll. Other than that, there should be no response directed at her.
Vince on May 17, 2010 at 9:06 PM
crr….. the reality is that Holder, Obama etc do not care what the law says. You for the most part have stayed silent and would rather play your little word games while Holder etc continue to lie and distort and they haven’t read the law. You are a dupe and you gladly play along. Seems if someone really cared about the law and government they would be more upset with how our leaders have gone after this law. In reality you are more than willing to allow it.
CWforFreedom on May 17, 2010 at 9:07 PM
Sorry if this is a repeat of old territory. I don’t have time to read all the comments.
Since when do we pass laws based on whether members of law enforcement feel “comfortable” enforcing them? I am unaware of this new standard of legislating. Or is this, as I believe, another revelation of situational ethics from the left.
Janet Napolitano is a disgrace to her office and the nation along w/ her compatriot AG Holder.
Terri on May 17, 2010 at 9:08 PM
This is the same border-enforcer-in-chief that thought it was “unfair” when she was asked if the border is more secure now than when she took charge.
The adults are definately in-charge now./s
cobrakai99 on May 17, 2010 at 9:09 PM
I don’t care for macCain. He did very well with the illiterate one. He was soft and subtle. He asked for what reason she would reject the bill she had not read. She blathered in generalities like Crr6 would.
The House energy bill. Waxman hadn’t read it. His name on it. Napolitano apparently didn’t read the glorious safety award bestowed on Transocean drilling either.
They just don’t read. All they know is what they snag from SNL news.
seven on May 17, 2010 at 9:14 PM
crr6 homework assignment
Section 834b in the California Penal Code:
Get back to us. Those fiends!
katy the mean old lady on May 17, 2010 at 9:28 PM
You.
massrighty on May 17, 2010 at 9:28 PM
And I didn’t even have to say likely or probably.
massrighty on May 17, 2010 at 9:31 PM
Sorry pal, but it looks like it’s you. At least in this thread.
You’ve yet to post anything remotely substantive, you haven’t responded to any points and when challenged, you’ve posted short, one sentence replies which don’t address any of the topics.
So please, contribute, or let the adults talk.
Thanks.
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 9:31 PM
Once again; we both have reputations here. I’ll keep mine, thanks.
massrighty on May 17, 2010 at 9:33 PM
So you think the AZ law is definitely constitutional? Why? What makes you so sure? How do you address the preemption problems? Won’t this law burden federal LEO’s and administrators? Isn’t it broader than the federal law (it was last time I read it)? What about racial profiling? Don’t you think the lawful contact requirement will just result in more Hispanics being pulled over for minor traffic violations?
Seriously, any substantive thoughts?
Bueller?
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 9:34 PM
She has not read the law and yet it is still ilk??? That dumb ..tch needs to be fired yesterday. Bring on the November to Remember.
Reality Checker on May 17, 2010 at 9:36 PM
heh. I don’t think you do have a reputation, dear. No one hear remembers you or finds you interesting. Just another forgettable wingnut, who can’t say a single substantive thought when challenged.
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 9:36 PM
Do you know why you and Napolitano are so stupid? It is called yapping instead of reading. Waxman didn’t read the bill to tax energy with his name on it. Because he is an idiot like crr6
Bedwetters are always crying themselves to sleep.
Poor Dems. Reading for comprehension is going to bite them. I can see November from my house.
seven on May 17, 2010 at 9:39 PM
How embarassing!
Holder look like a sleaze-bag…
She just looks stupid!
The New Narrative:
Democrats are not evil…
They’re incompetent!
Haiku Guy on May 17, 2010 at 9:49 PM
Back in the mid-80s, a freind of mine, Edward Lawson, used to make a habit of getting arrested on the week ends. He was a very dark skinned black man, with dredlocks. He would dress disreputably and go walking through the nicer neighborhoods of Northern California without ID.
Inevitably, the police would soon be called and would stop him to ask him who he was and what he was doing, and demand to see ID. Back then, a police officer could demand to see an ID and ask where you were going and what you were going to do when you got there, and you were legally compelled to answer. Edward would politely refuse to answer, and would get himself hauled into jail, like clockwork.
It was Edward’s goal to challenge this law, and eliminate the requirement for citizens to carry ID and answer police questions in the State of California. He was working with the Boalt Hall Law School, trying to get a test case before the Federal or State Supreme Court. I don’t know if he was ever successful.
But it was always kind of funny. On Friday, we would all be sitting around, drinking beer and talking about our plans. Most of us would be talking about going to the beach or trying our luck with some girl, and Edward would say that he was going to go get arrested in Pacific Heights, or someplace…
Haiku Guy on May 17, 2010 at 9:58 PM
Over / under until Big Sis gets fired: August 1st…
Khun Joe on May 17, 2010 at 9:58 PM
That’s the worst Haiku ever.
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 10:01 PM
Come on now Mr. Napolitano ! Read the bill !
Hummer53 on May 17, 2010 at 10:07 PM
And when is the media gonna get around to asking Obama if he has read it?
ericire12 on May 17, 2010 at 10:14 PM
Jeeeeezzzz! Send this ditzy broad back to the kitchen where she belongs baking cookies or something. She’s an idiot that has no business dictating national security policy.
bannedbyhuffpo on May 17, 2010 at 10:21 PM
Janet had never heard of a blowout preventer before she was appointed. Obama is drawn to idiots. The OSHA director was to clean up the bad Booosh safety record. He was a prof that specialized in teen STD’s. He has never visited a rig. One blew up and killed 11. The Dems are very haughty in their appointing trainees and worthless people. Preferably no technical experience. Janet is a poster child for hiring people with irrelevant experience. She is gender confused for starters. Fake it till you make it. Janet needed to go when she started profiling white middle aged males as being the perps behind all terror.
seven on May 17, 2010 at 10:28 PM
We used to call it a disability.
Now it is covered by reason of not being a job requirement.
There are many things in Janet’s responsibility she can’t grasp or cope with.
Biden is the same way.
seven on May 17, 2010 at 10:36 PM
Janet is stupid. Since she is a Democrat, she had to fire her staff and get Donkey drivers. She is stupid and can’t feel threatened by hiring some that are to sharp and tallented.
seven on May 17, 2010 at 10:39 PM
I can sort of understand the Democrats not wanting to read one of those 2000 page bills, but the 10-17 pagers, now that’s a problem for me. It’s really a problem when they don’t want to read it, but want to comment on it ad nauseum.
When is the free press going to get on this?
bflat879 on May 17, 2010 at 10:47 PM
I haven’t read the law and quite frankly I don’t give a rats ass if its constitutional.
Fact is Illegals are leavin and Liberals are stayin out of the state.
I wish Iowa would pass the same law maybe we could lose some illegals and Liberals too!
Maybe we could piss off Hrakin D IA bad enough he wouldn’t even bother to come back from his home in the Bahamas to even campaign.
dhunter on May 17, 2010 at 10:48 PM
So, it looks like our resident 1L law student seems to think it is ok to break federal immigration laws. What other laws are ok to ignore, crr6? I’d like to get in on the fun and games.
Sporty1946 on May 17, 2010 at 10:50 PM
Legal Assignment for crr6-
Explain why Article 1, Secton 10, paragraph 3 of the Constitutional might have been a better, more legally-sound, if more extreme method for Arizona to pursue its immigration battle.
profitsbeard on May 17, 2010 at 11:02 PM
errata – …of the “Constitution
al…”profitsbeard on May 17, 2010 at 11:05 PM
I’m confused how ths woman is in the place she is right now.
nwpammy on May 17, 2010 at 11:05 PM
CCr6, you claim to know so much about this Arizona bill but you have no knowledge of Mexican immigration laws which you stated in a previous post. Would you prefer that the USA and Arizona adopt Mexican immigration standards? Can you imagine spending two years in a Mexican jail if you are caught without papers? You should research what Mexican immigration laws since its my understanding you are a law student.
garydt on May 17, 2010 at 11:06 PM
When they said they didn’t read the Health Care Bill, I thought maybe it was because at 2000+ pages, it was just too long. Now that I find that they haven’t even read the 10 page Arizona bill, I’m convinced it’s because they are illiterate. That would explain an awful lot about their thought processes as well.
Harrell on May 17, 2010 at 11:07 PM
This keystone kops krew doesn’t bother to read two thousand page bills, while opining (falsely) about what they contain, while disparaging others who tell the public truthfully the horrors contained in their socialist legislation; so why would we expect that they would read a twenty page bill? They’ve got much more important stuff to do than actually read and report on legislation accurately, THEY’VE GOT TO FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM AMERICA! And you’ve got to break a few eggs to make that omelet. Truth and accuracy are a couple of those broken eggs.
eaglewingz08 on May 17, 2010 at 11:07 PM
Correct.
I don’t know, because I don’t know what Mexican immigration standards are.
Although, I find it odd that you think we should model our laws off of foreign countries. Especially freakin’ Mexico.
Not really.
Believe it or not, we don’t study Mexican law in American law schools. Wouldn’t be very useful.
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 11:20 PM
You fit right in here.
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 11:25 PM
It doesn’t take a law school to figure out what other nations immigration laws are. Most nations have borders and require immigrants to be financially independent when moving there. Mexico requires this as most nations do. When Mexico charges that our laws are unjust at the same time they have stricter laws makes sense for us to know them. It would be useful to know these laws when Yanks are visiting or moving to Mexico. Hope someday you will find knowing Mexican immigration laws useful.
garydt on May 17, 2010 at 11:27 PM
Great. That’ll probably happen around the same time you find Dutch welfare and health care laws useful.
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 11:31 PM
Most Americans would be more likely visiting Mexico then The Netherlands and why wouldn’t it be useful to know your neighbor’s laws. Surely they know ours and isn’t it a little provincial on our part to ignore these things? I’d hate to have a friend or relative land in jail down there because they were ignorant of the host country’s laws.
garydt on May 17, 2010 at 11:34 PM
Ok, Canadian health care law.
crr6 on May 17, 2010 at 11:35 PM
My point is when visiting or immigrating to other nations you should know that nations immigration and visitation laws. Going there ignorant could get you into trouble and beyond reach of American help if you do end up in a jail. It only takes a few minutes to study each nations laws so you don’t have to spend a semester studying the issue if thats what you are worried about. Just have your visa and other papers with you when you are visiting there and don’t stay beyond the experiation date.
garydt on May 17, 2010 at 11:42 PM
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has NOT read Arizona’s new law that directly deals with America’s borders? From her own home state?! Really? Really?
Heck of a job, Barack.
TN Mom on May 17, 2010 at 11:53 PM
The crime spree started on her watch.
petunia on May 18, 2010 at 12:06 AM
Is there a a country that has open borders?
That is a real question.
Every country has immigration laws and enforces them.
Why can’t we?
petunia on May 18, 2010 at 12:11 AM
You mean like the 67% of Arizonans who agree with the law?
Run along now. Your seat at the kiddie table is getting cold.
Dominion on May 18, 2010 at 12:17 AM
Remember crr6 has examined this law and knows nothing of other nations immigration policies. Crr6 would be horrified if the USA would adopt the immigration laws that other nations have. Arizona law would be a cream puff compared to them. These leftists don’t like to read.
garydt on May 18, 2010 at 12:21 AM
One hundred percent on target, wepeople!
Sherman1864 on May 18, 2010 at 12:22 AM
Preemption? More like properly delegated…
http://www.ice.gov/partners/287g/Section287_g.htm
Fighton03 on May 18, 2010 at 1:22 AM
The EU has open borders, which is why they are over run with Muslims. It’s funny…the EU has doomed themselves because they have opened their borders wide up in order to be “good Neighbors”…and have doomed themselves in order to offer the ultimate Nanny State.
They seem to me to be trying to be the United States, but don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept of “liberty for all”, “free speech”, “free markets”, and “border control”.
They are the ultimate Nanny States, and can’t seem to figure a way out of it without offending the government union workers…and that’s the road in which we are headed.
They/We are in a real pickle…
kakypat on May 18, 2010 at 3:32 AM
Oh!
Well!
Our local troll expert on the subject of state law has popped in again and given her opinion that the law is unconstitutional. I’m assuming on her “expanded authority” meme. Break it up and go home. Nothing more to see here.
(Unless of course you consider the theme of this thread was yet another Donk is giving expert opinion and testimony without a clue as to what’s actually written in the law, because…they still haven’t even read it.)
hawkdriver on May 18, 2010 at 4:59 AM
Preemption: While immigration is a prima facie federal issue, and Congress has legislated in the area, they have made no attempt to occupy the field. In fact, every border state has immigration laws, with California’s being closest to the law in AZ, which Congress has made no attempt to overturn. No preemption issues.
As far as burdening federal LEO’s, please explain this argument. The feds are not currently enforcing the federal law in this region, which has necessitated this law, so where is the burden?
How is this law broader than the federal law? In what way?
And as far as the lawful contact, they basically pulled the language straight from the definition of a Terry stop (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)). Is there room for racial profiling and abuse for law enforcement? Of course there is. Along with every single law that has ever been enacted. It is something that has to be watched from the law enforcement side, but this is no different than the age-old offense of “driving while black.” Traffic offenses are still constitutional, despite this. There is a danger, but when weighed against the substantial state interest in protecting their constituents, pales in comparison.
Thoughts?
ConservativeLawStudent on May 18, 2010 at 7:06 AM
She looks like she spends most of her time in an uncomfortable position. Wonder what the good people of AZ think of their former gov now? When you elect a dem, this is what you get, guys. Gov. Brewer is definitely a keeper.
Kissmygrits on May 18, 2010 at 9:17 AM
It’s kind of, sort of, very, very mind boggling that these two have not read the AZ law. One would think that these, in particular, would see finding the time to read it a priority. Does no one do any actual work in the Obama administration? Certainly Obama doesn’t and he appears to have set the tone.
jeanie on May 18, 2010 at 9:18 AM
Quite frankly the entire team of incompetent Obama Appointees make me very uncomfortable. They have not read the Law or the US Constitution either. The most dangerous administration ever.
old trooper2 on May 18, 2010 at 10:17 AM
I guess now we have OFFICIALLY moved from the propaganda stage , to the ” Complete control of the media and news ” stage .
Is this how Dictatorships emerge ?
I guess we can look forward to MORE citizens being labeled SEDITIOUS and then we go to ” enemy of the state ”
Don’t fret Obama seems to be a compassionate man , perhaps the ” re education camps ” will be at coastal resorts “.
HMMMM Perhaps I need a 30 month course at a location like PANAMA CITY BEACH or Destin FLORIDA !!!!!
ELMO Q on May 18, 2010 at 10:55 AM
They didn’t grill her enough. Say, ‘Here’s the bill’, read it while we wait.
johnnyU on May 18, 2010 at 11:08 AM
I feel soooooo safe.
ultracon on May 18, 2010 at 11:10 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »