Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Eliot Spitzer - Where do you New Yorkers get these guys?
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Does this hit you as a tiny bit absurd?
Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer blasted Republicans for "politics of fear and selfishness" in opposing his plans to allow illegal immigrants to get New York driver's licenses and to provide health insurance to all children.

"What has happened is that the politics of fear and selfishness has replaced the politics of common sense and responsibility," Spitzer said at Fordham University Tuesday. "We are witnessing knee-jerk reactions to sound policies that have no business being politicized or polluted by fear-mongering rhetoric."
Besides the obvious idiocy at work here, and just addressing the part about driver's licenses, do you think he realizes that as soon as he does that, few, if any agencies requiring valid ID will accept a NY driver's license?

TSA? I don't think so.

Spitzer was reacting to this, apparently:
Spitzer was responding to Republican Assembly leader James Tedisco, who said Spitzer's license plan in particular will be welcomed by Osama bin Laden. Some Senate Republicans also said the plan will lead to another Sept. 11, 2001, attack.
I have no idea if it would or wouldn't lead to another 9/11, but it is hard to argue that it isn't probable that the licenses could be used for other than intended uses. I.e. driving. To call his idea "sound policy" seems ludicrious. The potential for fraud seems unlimited.

His stated reason?
Spitzer would allow undocumented immigrants to get driver's licenses, which he says will improve public security by creating records for more immigrants. He would also add what he calls anti-fraud measures to the process.
Huh. Well if Spitzer considers that to be "sound policy" I assume he'd back a procedure that would allow illegal immigrants access to US passports. Afterall, it would "improve public security by creating records for more immigrants".

Two words: "Motor Voter". I'm sure you can figure this all out from there.

And did you notice he has difficulty using the word "illegal" in front of immigrants ... because that's what the uproar is about.

Can a call for in-state tuition be far behind?

[Heck, now that I think about it, he'd probably be a perfect Dem VP candidate]
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
So, if I was a New Yorker under 21 years of age, and I wanted to get my drink on, couldn’t I just show up at the DMV and ask for a license, posing as an illegal immigrant? I mean, surely the standards of verification can’t be set high (since you’re undocumented and all that - I mean how would they disprove you’re illegal?)

Also, since you’d be overtly admitting you’re an illegal immigrant by acquiring a license in this manner, wouldn’t they be able to just up and arrest you on the spot?
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
Prior to the 1990’s in California citizenship was not a requirement for obtaining a driving license. The two requirements were: meeting the qualifications for competently operating a motor vehicle, and proving one’s identity. In the early 1990’s the requirement of a Social Security number was added, specifically to prevent illegal aliens from obtaining licenses.

Ever since Clinton passed the Motor Voter legislation Democrats here have been eager to allow illegals to once again get licenses, because they know that anyone who signs all the forms they are handed at the Department of Motor Vehicles will now be automatically added to the voter rolls, and the only proof of voting eligibility demanded at the polling places is a drivers license. Presto! millions of new (illegal immigrant) Democratic voters will be created instantaneously.

At first, Governor Arnold was leaning toward accepting the elimination of the Social Security requirement, but he wanted some way to distinguish the licenses of people who had proved citizenship from the licenses of those who had not, and he wanted solid proof of identy. I personally would have supported this as well. The Democrats, of course, could not accept this, because it would have prevented the voting fraud, so the Dems would take all the heat for giving licenses to illegals without getting any of the voting fraud that they wanted, so the issue died.

Another aspect of the Democrat’s plan that bothered me was that the attempts to water down the proof of idenity requirements for obtaining a license seemed to me to be the Identity Thief Full Employment Act. In an era when identity theft is rampart, making it easier to gain a government ID seemed like a bad idea.

 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
And did you notice he has difficulty using the word "illegal" in from of immigrants ... because that’s what the uproar is about.
I though we established the fact in a previous discussion that the immigrants are only illegal as they cross the border, once in, if they’re not picked up at the border, they are no longer illegal and become just undocumented.

So, when you use "illegal" in front of undocumented immigrants, it’s you are using inaccurate nomenclature for effect, not Spitzer.

On the driver’s license issue, I agree with you. If they are undocumented, then how are they going document that they are providing accurate information. I have to bring in proof of citizenship, two picture id’s, and proof that I live at my stated address. If undocumented immigrants can do that, give them a license, otherwise, they can be turned away just like I was when I was missing one piece of required information.
Also, since you’d be overtly admitting you’re an illegal immigrant by acquiring a license in this manner, wouldn’t they be able to just up and arrest you on the spot?
Again, it’s not a crime to be in this country without legal authorization to be here.
"While Congress has criminalized the illegal entry into this country, it has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime unless the illegal alien has previously been deported and has again entered this country illegally," Judge Patrick McAnany wrote for the court majority.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
it is hard to argue that it isn’t probable that the licenses could be used for other than intended uses. I.e. driving

Maybe that’s the point... the intended use is just for driving. What we need is a separate form of photo ID for everything we currently use drivers’ licenses for. A drinking license/ID. An airline passenger license/ID. A verifying-the-name-on-your-credit-card license/ID.

I call it "original intent". A driver’s license is not a living, breathing document that needs to be interpreted by activists!
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
Again, it’s not a crime to be in this country without legal authorization to be here.
Heh - but, given that it’s a federal crime to commit conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens, I’d say giving them a drivers license is a really bad idea.
See, when they take the wife and kids to the store, - conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens.
Get on a bus or train? Drivers/Engineers can be convicted of conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens.
October 31, 2003
MEXICAN NATIONAL SENTENCED TO FEDERAL PRISON FOR
CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT ALIENS
United States Attorney Johnny Sutton announced today that Guillermo Parra-Luna, 43, citizen of Mexico and resident alien of the United States, was sentenced to 168 months in federal prison for conspiring to transport aliens within the Western District of Texas. Co-defendants Santos Omar Perez, 24, citizen of Honduras, and Juan Antonio Murillo-Reza, 21, of Zacatecas, Mexico, each were sentenced to 120 months in federal prison. Juan Morales-Dolores, 27, of Pueblo,
Mexico, was sentenced to 78 months in federal prison.
The charges arose from the discovery of 32 undocumented aliens in a sweltering mobile home in Campbellton, Texas, on August 20, 2002. The illegal immigrants, who were from Honduras and Mexico, crossed into the United States near Piedras Negras, Mexico, and were guided by “coyotes” on foot through Maverick and Zavala Counties to a pick-up point west of La Pryor, Texas.
Note, they didn’t even cross the state line, once they snuck across the border into Texas, still guilty of ’conspiring to transport aliens’.

heh - Now, if they’re driving themselves, wouldn’t that still be transporting undocumented aliens?

I’m sure there’s all kinds of laws they’re breaking BESIDES being here without documentation. You’re just not thinking hard enough.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Well a passport is proof of citizenship. And a driver’s license is proof of possesion of a birth certificate and abilty to pass a driving test. So not all-time-same-same.

Why should the DMV ask about your immigration status when testing your driving competence?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Ya know, I’m still trying to figure out how a federal judge got around this section in the immigration law:
Sec. 275. [8 U.S.C. 1325]

(a) Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or b oth, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
I think sneaking across the border constitutes ’eluding examination or inspection by immigration officers’, but hey, that’s just me.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Why should the DMV ask about your immigration status when testing your driving competence?
I don’t know, why am I required to show my social security #, I mean, what do my Social Security payments have to do with driving?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Again, it’s not a crime to be in this country without legal authorization to be here.
Sec. 275. [8 U.S.C. 1325] begs to differ.

Took about 20 minutes to find one that says it actually is illegal to elude immigration and to enter at places that weren’t designated by immigration officials.

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558dbe

You should check out Sec 274 - it’s even better.
INA: ACT 274 - BRINGING IN AND HARBORING CERTAIN ALIENS
1) (A) Any person who-
...
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law, shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B); or

(v) 1/ (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs-

(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) 2/ or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, 3/ be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;

(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), 4/ be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;

(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) 5/ during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18, United States Code) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and

(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, United States Code, or both.
subparagraph B (iv) - punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life...

So, technically, isn’t Spitzer guilty of
encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law
if he goes forward with his plan?



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Given that the perpetrators of the 09/11 attack did, in fact, obtain illegal drivers licenses in Falls Church, VA, it’s hard to argue that having the state facilitate valid ID for illegals wouldn’t make it easier for another crew to do the same. The only difference is that the government will have had a hand in making it happen.

Talk about an inside job!

 
Written By: the wolf
URL: http://
"I though we established the fact in a previous discussion that the immigrants are only illegal as they cross the border, once in, if they’re not picked up at the border, they are no longer illegal and become just undocumented.

So, when you use "illegal" in front of undocumented immigrants, it’s you are using inaccurate nomenclature for effect, not Spitzer."
Say what you want Captain, but you and everyone else who nods his head in agreement is just being hyper-pedantic and looking like an idiot in the process.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
I think there are a lot of reasons in favor of Spitzer’s ideas, to dismiss this as somehow crazy or bizarre (’where do they get these guys’) seems an over-reaction. It’s legitimate to disagree, of course, but I don’t really think it’s accurate to somehow act is if this was some kind of bizarre and patently absurd plan. I’ve heard many reasoned arguments for this kind of policy. I don’t have a position on it because I don’t know enough about the issue and sub issues to really now the policy implications.

Also, for terror organizations, they don’t have too many difficulties getting forged papers. As part of the policy calculation, it seems like that would be a minor issue.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Must be me again - looks like it’s against Federal law if someone would care to enforce it.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Scott Erb wrote:
I think there are a lot of reasons in favor of Spitzer’s ideas, to dismiss this as somehow crazy or bizarre (’where do they get these guys’) seems an over-reaction.
What reasons? If illegal aliens can be granted drivers licenses and such, why have a distinction between illegal and legal citizens? With proposals like this one, why not just have open borders? Why bother with this nudge-nudge wink-wink nonsense approach to immigration law (please don’t come in, but if you make it in, well it’s all good)? It undercuts the consistency of our laws. Whether or not the US should have open or closed borders is a seperate point of discussion; but we shouldn’t half-arse it either way.
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
Yup.....I’m soon to be an ex-New Yorker. All the progress Giuliani made is going to be flushed away.

Membership has its privileges? Well.....it used to anyway.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I think there are a lot of reasons in favor of Spitzer’s ideas, to dismiss this as somehow crazy or bizarre (’where do they get these guys’) seems an over-reaction. It’s legitimate to disagree, of course, but I don’t really think it’s accurate to somehow act is if this was some kind of bizarre and patently absurd plan. I’ve heard many reasoned arguments for this kind of policy. I don’t have a position on it because I don’t know enough about the issue and sub issues to really now the policy implications.
Fine...lets institute this policy in Maine first
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Boris Erb avers:
I think there are a lot of reasons in favor of Spitzer’s ideas, to dismiss this as somehow crazy or bizarre (’where do they get these guys’) seems an over-reaction.
Name one of the reasons you think there are a lot of, Boris.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I though we established the fact in a previous discussion that the immigrants are only illegal as they cross the border, once in, if they’re not picked up at the border, they are no longer illegal and become just undocumented.
That’s a bit like saying someone is a murderer only when he’s actually committing murder. After the deed is done, he’s merely a non-humanitarian.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
That’s not an overreaction, Erb. It’s the only proper question to ask in the matter.

then again, and speaking as someone who lives in the Buffalo area, let me just say that the reason Spitzer has such great difficulty determining our problem with the proposal, is that he has no concept of what constitutes "illegal". Witness his own activities recently to get an idea of what I’m talking about. See also, Joe Bruno.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
That’s a bit like saying someone is a murderer only when he’s actually committing murder. After the deed is done, he’s merely a non-humanitarian.

Actually, it would be more like saying someone is possessing or ingesting illegal drugs only when he’s actually possessing or ingesting illegal drugs. In fact, that’s exactly what was said in the thread Cap linked to. You should check it out before criticizing it, because that thread explains his point better than the one sentence you’ve quoted from him. Read David Shaughnessy’s comments (here, I’ll link the thread again ). That’s what Cap was talking about. It’s an interesting point, and worth reading and understanding.

Keep in mind of course that Sarcastic only took issue today with McQ’s "using inaccurate nomenclature for effect" - not the overall point about the licenses.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
Actually, it would be more like saying someone is possessing or ingesting illegal drugs only when he’s actually possessing or ingesting illegal drugs. In fact, that’s exactly what was said in the thread Cap linked to. You should check it out before criticizing it, because that thread explains his point better than the one sentence you’ve quoted from him.
I read the thread when it was active; I’ve been on this blog a lot longer than you or sarcastic or shaughnessy. It’s a silly distinction, and playing semantics with illegal immigration distracts from the real issue. I’m not going to go along with it. "Illegal alien" is an accurate term.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
Actually, McQ, they come here and look up Jon Henke, who had LOTS of ugly things to say about me and many other people who look upon national sovereignty as more than a semantic term.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
I’d be happy if anyone who drives a car is actually competent to the task.

Dis I miss discussion about that fundamental, anywhere?
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.uncsense.com
I have been in traffic courts on several occasions, and I was amazed at the number of people who drove without a valid driver’s license, insurance, or car registration, and I am speaking of obviously native-born people. From that and from what I have read, having large numbers of unlicensed and uninsured drivers on the road doesn’t seem to have been a problem until now. I wonder why?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Didn’t the Kansas case have to do with a probation issue, and whether or not he could be given probation based on his ’illegal’ status (in effect, he would instantly be in violation of his probation by the very fact that he was illegally here to start with). The citations note he’ll probably be deported.

In the meantime bad precedent is just bad precedent.
Supreme Court Justice Taney ruled that African-Americans were farm machinery at one point, that doesn’t mean we site it today as a good precedent.

Like I said, could be me, but the USCIS statues seems pretty clear about who an alien is, and what the possible violations they can be charged under are.
The fact that certain places act as sanctuary cities tells you that ICE must be able to scoop these people up and drop them off at the border once they’re in custody and identified, and looking at the statues, it appears they could also set them in a cell for a while if they wanted to.
We’d probably have to set aside a few states to manage that effect, and frankly I don’t want these people to rot in jail. I realize they’re just trying to upgrade from the lands they were born in. I just want them to talk to the ticket agent before they snuggle down in the first class seats.

I also know, for a fact, that ’la migra’ can scoop you up, way up north of the border (Say, for example I’ve witnessed, Plano Texas....) and bundle you back off to the Rio Grande if they want to, no ’just saw you crossing the line there Senor! gonna have to ask you to leave and not come back without permission!’ required.

It’s illegal, you can get semantic and cite the Kansas ruling all you like,
if it weren’t the sanctuary cities wouldn’t be needed.
I was amazed at the number of people who drove without a valid driver’s license, insurance, or car registration, and I am speaking of obviously native
-born people
And Tim - from your lips to God’s ear! But you’d never know it sometime, I gather we haven’t got room for them in jail either, what with rounding up all those hard core criminal kids smoking pot and all.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I’ve been on this blog a lot longer than you or sarcastic or shaughnessy. It’s a silly distinction,

Hey Steverino, I certainly didn’t imply that you are new around here. I just noted that you did not participate in the other conversation and didn’t seem to have any appreciation of the point shaughnessy made there, so I thought you might have missed that thread. No insult intended there.

But calling the legal distinction "silly" doesn’t change the fact that it exists and is relevant to many discussions about undocumented persons. Of course, if you are only talking about the moral aspect of illegal immigration and people who dare to live and breathe undocumented in this Land of the Free, then I disagree with your position on a more basic level.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
I’ve been on this blog a lot longer than you or sarcastic or shaughnessy.
And Robert Byrd has been in the Senate longer than anyone... so what’s you’re point?

Here is my point, and the legal facts of the situation.

Police, who are authorized to arrest anyone with whom they have probable cause to believe they are guilty of a crime, have NO GROUNDS to arrest anyone who they have probably cause to believe is an undocumented immigrant. The reason they may not arrest them (for being undocumented) is that being undocumented is NOT ILLEGAL.

INS or ICE may take undocumented immigrants into custody for status review, but, and this is HUGE, they are not arresting them or charging them with a crime.

It’s not semantics, Congress has chosen not to make being in the country without documentation a crime.

I personally applaud this decision, as the alternative would be essentially to give police probable cause to drag virtualy anyone to jail pending proof of documentation. As if they don’t have enough ways to deprive people of their freedom for some period of time.

If being undocumented were illegal, then undocumented immigrants would be guilty of a crime, and would be subject to sumamry arrest by any law enforcement officer. This is simply not the case, and it’s not a matter of interpretation, it is intentional.

Think about this... If it were illegal not to have documentation that you belong here, we would ALL be subject to arrest on occasion.

Can you say... "Papers please"?

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
The reason they may not arrest them (for being undocumented) is that being undocumented is NOT ILLEGAL.
Nice, play that game with the word ’documentation’, as if an ’undocumented alien’ (an illegal alien) is really a documented one who just isn’t carrying his papers at the moment of inquiry. That’s not what we’re talking about here.

What’s the purpose of an extensive USCI document that outline what constitutes an alien, an immigrant, a dependent, who’s exempt, who’s not, and in what manner it’s ’illegal’ to be in the country when you’re an alien?
The defense you’re offering is "local law enforcement has no jurisdiction" to walk up to an ’alien’ looking guy on the street and ask to see his papers. And ya know, I have to say I agree, that’s the way I want it to stay too.
Congress has chosen not to make being in the country without documentation a crime
What they made illegal was being in the country without having gone through an area designated by the immigration service as an entry point. That, applies to people WITH documentation to be here, and without documentation to be here.
The trick is - who can stop you and ask you to prove you’re a citizen then.

So, are we suggesting if I’m wanted for a Federal crime, the New York DMV shouldn’t notify the FBI if I walk in to get my license renewed, or can they only notify the FBI if the crime I’ve committed is a crime in the State of New York as well, and they just want to tell them they have dibs.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Darth Spitzer says "selfishness" like its a bad thing.
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
A driver’s license is all that is currently required to register to vote in New York. Item 9 on the Voter Registration Form asks for either the last four digits of your SSN OR you DMV (driver’s license) number.

It really makes you wonder if Spitzer’s crusade to grant licenses to illegal immigrants doesn’t have more to do with increasing the Democratic base by any means necessary? (legal or otherwise)
 
Written By: Emma
URL: http://
Mad about the governor unilaterally making a decision? Go to wgy.com. Under "on air" click on Al Roney. On the right hand side he has info on this—and a link to a forum that a listener started. They are talking about a rally in Albany on 10/22. If you are interested, join the discussion. If you can’t make it, spread the word.
 
Written By: DisgustedUpstateNYer
URL: http://
Yeah, I’m failing to see the logic as well.

First, what good does this so-called "information" do? Every single one of the 911 attackers had a valid drivers license, and the FBI had files on all of them. But, what good did it do anyone? They died right along with the 3,400 people they killed. Of course, the fact that they were able to obtain drivers and pilots licenses after spending less than a year in the United States was clearly problematic.

Oddly enough, Tedisco is petitioning to make providing false information on a license application a crime. What took them so long to come around to this epiphany?

By and large, this is the major problem with the current treatment of illegal immigration; everything is a directive, nothing a mandate. The "undocumented," instead of being charged with a crime akin to criminal tresspass, are simply looked at as administrative technicalities (i.e., undocumented).

Illegal immigrants are not deported upon commission of a felony; rather they serve their sentence and get paroled right back onto the streets. They drive without licenses, and when found our are not criminally charged. Ditto for tax evasion and identity theft.

What is wrong with this country? I’m begining to feel like I am the immigrant as opposed to someone born and raised here? Suddenly the laws and culture make positively no sense to me.
 
Written By: Emma
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider