Home > Gwinnett > Rick Badie / My Opinion > Archives > 2006 > April > 08 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USEquality at heart of pledge challenge
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Donald A. Weissman grew up reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Atlanta attorney is just as patriotic as you.
Or me.
But Weissman felt compelled to object when he saw a Gwinnett County magistrate judge open court proceedings with the Pledge of Allegiance. Judge Mark A. Lewis started the practice after Sept. 11. Been doing it ever since. He doesn’t mandate it, request it or require it. He simply invites people in his courtroom to stand, then turns his back to them and faces the U.S. flag.
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Some join in. Some don’t. Their choice.
Weissman is the defense attorney in a civil complaint that was to be heard by Lewis in Gwinnett Superior Court. He was concerned about the propriety of the pledge practice. He wasn’t out to attack Lewis or denigrate his patriotism. He just didn’t think Lewis was aware of the impact the practice might have on people, notably immigrants. So Weissman filed an ethics complaint with the state Judicial Qualifications Commission.
In a March 17 letter, he objected to Lewis’ beginning court with a “public declaration of national loyalty.” And he asked the judge to do one of two things: discontinue the practice or recuse himself from the civil complaints case. Lewis chose the latter.
It’s easy to dismiss Weissman at first blush. To say that his concern isn’t a concern at all. Just political correctness gone amok. After all, this is America, and Lewis presides in a U.S. court of law. Besides, if a judge can’t recite the pledge, who can?
Weissman said he’s rightly concerned about fairness. And motivated by strange behavior he’s seen judges exhibit through the years.
One judge saluted the Confederate flag. Another one called blacks by their first name and addressed whites as Mr. and Mrs. Yet another started court with a prayer.
“When a person walks into the courtroom wearing a black robe, then that person is called upon to decide issues based on the facts of the law and not where people stand on politics, religion, national origins or loyalty,” he said.
Or whether defendants stand up and recite the pledge with the judge.
“What (Lewis) is trying to do is perfectly laudable,” Weissman said. “My objection is to whether he leaves, or creates, an appearance in which people in his courtroom perceive his loyalty as partiality.”
Then there are the immigrants.
Gwinnett is the Ellis Island of the Southeast. Nationalities abound. You’d be hard-pressed to name a country unrepresented in the county fabric. Imagine, Weissman said, being a non-U.S. citizen in the courtroom of a pledge-reciting judge.
“Is he going to treat them the same as if they are native born?” he asked. “That question mark needs to be taken out of the equation. I’m not saying the judge would do anything different, but it’s the perception.”
Lewis told AJC Gwinnett News that Weissman had a right to challenge the practice. Still, he doesn’t think he should be forbidden from saying the pledge. He hopes the qualifications commission — if it finds merit in the ethics complaint — rules in his favor.
What do you think?
Is fairness jeopardized when a judge recites the Pledge of Allegiance? Would it cause immigrants consternation to see a judge expressing loyalty to the USA?
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By MrLiberty
April 8, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
The pledge is a pledge to a piece of fabric. The only thing the judge should be pledging his allegiance to is the constitution, the bill of rights, and the laws of Georgia. The pledge was created by a socialist and was foisted on the american public to fulfill his socialist agenda. That so many people blindly support this pledge but don’t even respect the bill of rights or the constitution only goes to show how far we have come as a nation.
I no longer recite the pledge because we no longer have a republic. What we have is a totalitarian empire. I pledge my allegiance to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Maybe if more americans would pledge their support to these we might be able to fix what’s wrong with america.
By Rx
April 8, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this
Very interesting comment Mr. Liberty. I pretty much aggree.
By Sam
April 8, 2006 09:12 PM | Link to this
The flag represents the Declaration, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the citizens, and the thousands of men and women who have fought and died to assure their continued existence.
The flag also represents the American legal system, created and paid for by America. So it seems hypocritical of a litigant to walk into an American courtroom, protected by the American Bill of Rights, demand that American law and American procedure be applied to their case, and then whine when a judge publicly acknowledges America. It’s tantamount to saying, “I want all the advantages of the American legal system without giving anything in return.”
The mere fact that we can sit around and argue about this disproves the heated rhetoric that we live in a “totalitarian empire.” I think Mr. Liberty has been listening to Michael Moore too long.
By Michael H. Smith
April 8, 2006 10:15 PM | Link to this
I agree with you Sam. People may not pledge allegiance to this country but they sure have no qualms in taking every right, privilege and freedom America provides.
By Sam Snelling
April 8, 2006 10:45 PM | Link to this
The judge represents the government in his court room His actions convey a message not only to immigrants but to those who choose not to be religious that they are outsiders — not full members of the political community. In my opinion, the judge should know better
By Bruce Wilcox
April 8, 2006 10:51 PM | Link to this
“but to those who choose not to be religious that they are outsiders — not full members of the political community. In my opinion,” but isn’t that against the First Amendment Mr. Snelling?
By Dick
April 8, 2006 11:23 PM | Link to this
If you are not an American citizen, you don’t have a first admendment.
By Bruce Wilcox
April 8, 2006 11:51 PM | Link to this
Read Mr. Snellings comments again Dick, he applies it to “those who choose not to be religious” as well as immigrants. As far as the rights of immigrants appearing before an American Court, I can find any thing to suggest that they are not afforded the same rights as all of us.
By Charley van Rotterdam
April 9, 2006 06:58 AM | Link to this
What is Dick saying: that non Americans in the USA don’t have to be dealt with under US law or that non Americans in the USA don’t have to heed US law even though they live there. How would Dick like to be picked up in another country and have ad hoc law applied to him.
By gttim
April 9, 2006 08:16 AM | Link to this
If the somebody is suing the government and the judge recites the pledge before the case starts, can the plaintifs expect that judge to be impartial?
By PinestrawGuy
April 9, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justicefor all.
(They didn’t add ‘under God’ until the 50’s.)
How can anything in that pledge be taken as ‘partiality’ in a court of law? It is an American judge in an American court dispensing American justice under American law. RIDICULOUS!
This kind of irrational political correctness is going to be the destruction of a once-proud sovereign nation.
By Michael H. Smith
April 9, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
Oh this hurts to say. You’re right this time Bruce. This is painful, agreeing…. Well, just not going to say it. Okay, enough with the theatrics.
On afforded rights it’s called the 14th Amendment and the resolve to the argument is encapsulated in two little words “any person”, which gives “any person” every right, protection, privilege and freedom every U.S. citizen enjoys, precluding the rights which by the constitution are specifically reserved for the “citizen” only. Did I get it about right former Congressmen Barr?
Now back to the 1st Amendment. That argument will likely go on endlessly, though the answer at least from my two cents, is for the government to ensure and protect “plurality” in regards to religion and the non-religion-religions. Since the argument appears to surround the one word “God” for the non-religious, let the Atheist or whatever else simply insert, the one word “Law” in recitation of the pledge of allegiance. For the religious they can keep and use the word “God” in their recitation. If all factions could exercise reasonable tolerance in this regard, the feud could subside but honesty I don’t expect such to actually transpire. Simply too much very sincere belief and emotion exists on this one.
As to being subject to ad hoc law in a foreign country that is more than a possibility. Once a U.S. citizen leaves this sovereign country they become subject to the laws of whatever sovereign country they are in and have “NO” protections from the U.S. Constitution to protect them from the extreme powers of a government.
Moral of this story is Toto, there’s no place like home.
By James McCoy
April 9, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
The question should be what’s this judge’s real agenda,enforcing and judging the law or petty politics? My guess is petty politics,his knowledge of the law should tell him to keep his personal opinions at the courthouse steps. But in today’s america most people don’t want to rule and govern their own lives but would prefer to have a King to tell them what to do or think. For an example see the occupant of the White House!
By Michael H. Smith
April 9, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
Kings…. We’ve probably had them all along, though after King Franklin the First we decided to limit their life expectancy to eight years. Then again as sometimes is the case, their rule remains present long after their departure, dressed in robes of black for a lifetime. Oyez. Oyez. Oyez.
By Joan Applepie
April 9, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
That judge was correct in pledging to our flag. It’s his courtroom and he ‘invites’ others to join him, doesn’t demand that they do. This is the United States of America, but is fast becoming the UNTIED States of America because too many folks demand that their way be the way of the land. We used to speak and hear English in public; now Americans are pandering to Spanish who refuse to speak English. The Chinese, Pakistanis, Russians, Indians, all have different alphabets from English BUT have learned our language, but Spanish—who share our alphabet—cannot master English. Duh? They’re the same ones who are flying the flags of the countries that FAILED them. Duh? Hats off to that judge!
By James McCoy
April 9, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
I guess Joan Applepie has no problem with the government posting a guard inside of her bedroom also to make sure there’s no funny kind of activity going on in there? Or maybe she wouldn’t mind if they were posted inside of her home to make sure she doesn’t disagree with what the president says? Or maybe Joan Applepie is the type who finds thinking for her self a fulltime job? And is too busy shopping to take time to think for herself!
By Joan Applepie
April 9, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Please reread what I wrote, James McCoy. I said the judge ‘invited’ folks to join him in reciting the pledge in his courtroom, which is a public place. What’s that got to do with posting a guard inside my bedroom or home, which is private property? Duh? Kep to the subject, Jim. Thinking for myself IS a fulltime job; I follow no one, but learned to think for myself by attending college for eight years, to earn two Masters degrees, Library Science and Education. The ability to learn is much more exciting than shopping, esp. seeing all the imported items on store shelves these days! Again, hats off to that judge!
By James McCoy
April 9, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
A college degree doesn’t means you have common sense Joan Applepie! It just means you are trained to do someone’s bidding!
By Nikole
April 9, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
I choose not to pledge to the flag anymore, it is idolatrous to me. And I do think that even if I exercised my right not to pledge, my case may be looked at differently because of that. People already look at me funny when I do not pledge now. (Last time was at my husband’s graduation from the Navy’s boot camp.)
By James McCoy
April 9, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
You can always tell a true American by their actions and interactions with their fellow countrymen and women. Not by some symbol,this Judge in my humble opinion is making a mockery out of our court system and what it is suppose to stand for. Maybe we can get this Judge on the next edition of “American Idol”.
By Joan Applepie
April 9, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
How wrong you are, Jim! A college degree does not mean one is trained to do another’s bidding. The aim of education is to teach one HOW to think, not WHAT to think; rather to improve one’s mind, to enable one to think for him/herself, not to load one’s mind with thoughts of others. Common sense of itself, hopefully, is taught by one’s parents. Family and friends are there to teach the 10 commandments, and right from wrong. Education should begin at birth.I was taught that one learns from the company one keeps…birds of a feather flock together, so the saying goes….That judge who says the Pledge in his courtroom apparently learned from conservative, patriotic family, bless him. Hats off to that judge! It appears you’re a fan of the likes of gruffy Michael Moore, Jim. Unity (and conservatism) is important for a country to stay strong, as we’ve done thus far. I pray USA remains strong, negating the likes of those who doth protest.I believe the problem is that USA’s at war with its own origins, traditions, and values. The spoils of this war will be the carcass of Christian-Judeo civilization dragged down the dirt road, by ignorant demanding crowds and pandering politicians.
By James McCoy
April 9, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
So Ms.Applepie I can take from your rant that not only are you a mind reader,you will be heading to the Army Recuritment Station ASAP Monday to enlist. You do know we are in need of highly educated patrotic soliders in Iraq? Or is the Army only reserved for those without college degree’s? You need to put up on this issue of patrotism or shut up,and for the record I was a member of the USMC during the 1970’s. I believe I have earned the right to be critical of our government and country if I see a short coming. And to get back to topic the Judge in question is still a joke for our court system.
By LG
April 9, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
Over two hundred year ado,John Adams fought against the two party system in America. He said it would be the undoing of politics in America - the last six years have proven him correct.
Joan - the judge is a new patriot since he didn’t start saying the pledge in his court room until after 9-11. If he was truly patriotic he would’ve said it before that.
Having lost a friend in the WTC, and having friends and an uncle escape it that day, I’d rather see Bin Laden caught, then have someone saying the pledge.
By Eric
April 9, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
James, I have heard that type of complaint whenever someone takes a patriotic stand (and in no way am I downplaying your service), but there seems to be a belief that those with degrees didn’t serve their country. I can speak personally that I have both a college degree and a military rank (MSG) that is current!
By James McCoy
April 9, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
Eric if you go back and follow the exchange between Ms.Applepie and I,you will see what I said to her was sprinkled with sarcasim,in relation to what she was saying. For the record nothing was said on my part to disparage any member of the military. You guys sometimes need to slow down and read what is written and not what you think is being said.
By Bruce Wilcox
April 9, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
“his courtroom, which is a public place”? I didn’t know they actually gave the Judge the court room, do they get to keep it when they retire or do they have to turn it back in ? So if it’s ‘His’ court room, does he have he own Constitution?
By Lou
April 9, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this
I read your statement the Gwinnett is the “Ellis Island” of the Southeast and juxtaposed it with the concept in the Bill of rights that allows for freedom of religion. The comment about “under God” being added in the 50’s leads me to think that we need to add one more letter to the pledge. The letter “a” would fit in quite nicely between “under” and “God”. This would make room for those who have come to the U.S. seeking a better life but worship a God recognized by a different name, be it God, Yahweh, Allah, Bhagwan, Shiva, or even a person elevated to “Godhood” like Buddha. And while were at it, why not recognize that the Flag of the U.S. represents all the people, those born here and those who have come to seek citizenship. Let’s substitute “Old Glory” for the King James Bible in our courts when it comes time to “swear or affirm” to tell the truth. What allegiance does a Hindu have to the bible? What moral stricture does a Muslim have to tell the truth when asked to swear on a Bible? Why should a Jew have to swear on the whole Bible when it’s the Old Testament they revere? The Flag is the symbol of our country, not the Bible. Next time I’m asked to testify, it’ll be holding the flag I fought for in Viet-Nam and Iraq. My Christian religion is my personal business, but my loyalty is to my country.
By LG
April 9, 2006 06:34 PM | Link to this
Lou,
They’ve already taken the bible away from court, and you no longer say “so help me God.”
By MRC
April 9, 2006 08:08 PM | Link to this
I think that this “political correctness” crap is going way too far. Why is it that those who are offended by something always given the upper hand in things? What about those who are supposedly doing the offending? This judge did not make anyone say the pledge and therefore should not have been made to recuse himself. If I was the judge, I would sue the lawyer. If you don’t like something, don’t partake in it or listen to it. Cover your ears and stop wining. I’m only 26 and it seems to me that we have more babies than adults in this world. GROW UP!!
By Dave
April 9, 2006 08:42 PM | Link to this
The lawyer said “an American court.” It is a court of American - U.S. - law. No other nations’ law is applied there. The judge carries no authority in any other nation. Americans situated in other lands — for example parents gone abroad in custody suits — are subject to the decisions rendered there. My advice to the writer of this article, and to the lawyer filing the complaint against the judge, is to shut up, be grateful that American law is served fairly in courts like the one in Gwinnett, and ask themselves which other nation’s laws they’d prefer to see in force here.
By Dave
April 9, 2006 08:44 PM | Link to this
Attn Sam Snelling: The judge does not represent the government; the prosecutor does. The judge represents the law and due process. It’s not the end of the world when a judge places himself above the government, but when a judge places himself above the law, our entire system is endangered.
By Jeff
April 9, 2006 08:46 PM | Link to this
A quote from Chief Justice Rehquist seems to sum this one up. Written in a concurring opinion in Newdow and directly relating to “Under God”, but applies in this case nonetheless, at least in my mind:
When courts extend constitutional prohibitions beyond their previously recognized limit, they may restrict democratic choices made by public bodies. Here, Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State of California required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students. Thus, we have three levels of popular government—the national, the state, and the local—collaborating to produce the Elk Grove ceremony. The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they chose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of “heckler’s veto” over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase “under God,” is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance. -Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist- , United States Supreme CourtElk Grove Unified School District v Newdow, concurring opinion
By Jim Beggs
April 9, 2006 08:55 PM | Link to this
Far too many Americans have confused patriotism with punishing some ethnic group currently out of favor. For others, there is far more to this great nation than punishing suspects. Many would like to see an open trial before jurists who are not afraid that their patriotism is being questioned. Those who are screaming the loudest about patriotism seem to be mostly on the punishing side. Their crys seem to equate justice with throwing some person in jail.
9/11 did not give our arresting officers an unerring ability to grab only guilty people. Also, it did not soften their desire to grab suspects. If they are doing their job, we should expect to see an increased number of innocent suspects in our courts.
If I were one of those innocent suspects appearing in court, I would be very concerned about a judge appearing overly patriotic. I might even present a defense more concerned with patriotism than with the facts of my case.
This judge was very right to recuse himself. I support his decision in the interest of building a nation which serves justice. As such, this nation will live longer than a nation which simply demands punishment.
By Dave
April 9, 2006 10:15 PM | Link to this
Attn Jim Beggs: How would you present a defense based on patriotism more than the facts of the case? “Yes, your honor, I raped her, but I did it because I’m an American and she’s a smelly foreigner.” That’ll work just great. Italics added for the benefit of the sarcasm-challenged mouthbreathers out there like Jim Beggs.
By Jim Beggs
April 9, 2006 10:42 PM | Link to this
Dave: It’s hard to be sarcastic when your example makes my point so well. I should never have to mention patriotism in my defense. Such a consideration should be a waste of the courts time. I feel that this judge recognized that his newly adopted habit was becoming an awkward distraction from the justice of the court. You agree with me much more than your derogatives might indicate.
By Brad
April 9, 2006 11:10 PM | Link to this
How much longer will it take political correctness to kill the heart of this nation? Why are we always so afraid of offending someone and compromising the principles of what was a great nation? Why does the law system give more rights to those who do things illegally than those who try to live a righteous life?
By Jim Beggs
April 10, 2006 01:17 AM | Link to this
Brad: A really good trial lawyer once commented, “When the facts are on your side, try it on the facts. When the facts are not on your side, try it on anything but the facts.” Patriotism? Rights? Great nation? Where does Sgt. Joe Friday’s request fit in, “Just the facts, Ma’m. Just the facts.” Only when our court officers can do their basic work without fear, favor, or predujice, will our nation achieve the greatness that future generations will need. Our founding fathers gave defendants rights because they could not give them a police force. Their process worked pretty good before 9/11. I would hate to see this present situation panic us into destroying the very liberties granted by our laws. Our courts sure are’nt perfect, but they’ve been doing a better job than just about any other courts. Let’s learn again to trust them again.
By C.M.German
April 10, 2006 07:02 AM | Link to this
Would it cause immigrants consternation to see a judge expressing loyalty to the USA? People who have not violated the laws of the country should have nothing to fear from a pledge of allegiance. I would think they would like to join in to show their appreciation to their adoptive nation, not to mention their allegiance. I think this attorney is likely going to run for a public office someday.
By DJJazzyD
April 10, 2006 07:25 AM | Link to this
I don’t have a problem with the Judge reciting the pledge. It does in fact state “justice for all”. Justice is usually, and suposedly, handed down in a court of law. Where would be more fitting to recite the pledge than in a court of law?
By James McCoy
April 10, 2006 07:41 AM | Link to this
You Pledge proponets just don’t get it,you can’t seem to see the forest for the trees. When the thought Police come knocking on your door one morning maybe then a light will come on in those empty heads of yours. Have you not been paying attention to what’s happening in this country? Or have you been to busy trying to keep a roof over your head to notice that your country is being taken from you I piece at a time.
By Melllllll1
April 10, 2006 08:05 AM | Link to this
It’s a stupid plendge to a flag. Get over it. We are not “one nation under God”. The white man stole this country to begin with. It’s not ours (fools)!
By Otis
April 10, 2006 08:17 AM | Link to this
This Country was founded on religion and loyality. The pledge of allegiance is a pledge of loyality to this Country, to stop now has the effect of saying i will give up when challegened and the demonstrations by the illegals shows what regard they have for the people of this Country.If the big marches do occur it would be a good time round them up.
By Melllllll1
April 10, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this
Religion? Loyalty? We stole people from Africa and felt they should be our slaves. We killed native Indians because we wanted their land. What kind of religion are you talking about? And who were we being loyal to?
By meme
April 10, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this
We say the pledge to the flag in school every morning. Those students who object on a religious basis are not required to pledge. We have not had one student or parent tell us that they object to this practice.
By mon
April 10, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
Let me see if I have this correct…. A judge exercises his first admendment right by saying the pledge… then a lawyer exercises his first admendment right by saying that he didn’t like the judge exercising his first admendment right, so he wants the judge to recuse himself from the case? What a wonderful world this is!!
By waz
April 10, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this
It sounds to me like weissman is trying to drum up a little immigrant business.
By Markus
April 10, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this
Considering government is not able to protect those who are publicly denigrated for not reciting the Pledge, is an attack on the religious freedoms to all who oppose to the Pledge.
Not to mention it’s requires quite an extra-ordinary effort from an 6 year old to step out of the rote line. I know I will teach my kid to stay out of it.
By Sabrina
April 10, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
The judge has overstepped boundaries that would lead me to think he is not very impartial. I’m glad that he was kind enough, not too try to force anyone to recite the pledge. However, it makes him appear to be a fanatic of some kind – that, I would not like to see in any judge. When we have people who clearly lean to one side of an issue, our judicial system cannot work properly. I would be offended, if I had to come before him in court. I was born in this country and so were my great, great, great grandparents. I don’t feel the need to recite the pledge, because it truly does not have a place in my life. It should be enough to swear to tell the “Truth” in our court system.
By Bruce Wilcox
April 10, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
Otis, “This Country was founded on religion and loyality.”. In the Constitution God is not mentioned, but in Article VI -3 it is stated…”no reglious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” It would seem our founding fathers wanted to make the seperation of church and state quite clear.
The pledge was written in the late 1800’s and without God in it. Were people before that unpatriotic?
By Charley van Rotterdam
April 10, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
Even Jesus saw the separation of Chuch and State with his phrase ‘render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s etc etc’
Don’t your judges take some sort of oath to uphole the laws of the US etc when they become a judge. Wouldn’t that be more appropriate to say then the Pledge which I think copuld make him a wee bit partisan in certain cases.
This judge has not properly thought through his actions, I really would not like to come before him on any matter, he seems to be a wee bit opinionated, not good in a judge.
By Bruce H
April 10, 2006 10:18 PM | Link to this
Methinks Mr. Badie hath stirred up the proverbial hornet’s nest with this one. By displaying patriotism this judge has made himself biased? Partisan? Opinionated? To whom? Other Citizens? Perhaps it’s his rights that are being quashed, because after all, this is a civil case.
By Bruce H
April 10, 2006 10:37 PM | Link to this
Sorry, that didn’t sound quite right. I didn’t mean to infer that a civil case was any less relevant than any other type of trial. What I do suggest is that a display of Nationalism by a judge before a civil trial would seem to be less likely to imply bias than at a mass-murder trial (although a mass-murderer may be quite the patriot). To solve the whole issue, lets simply take PCness to the point where no one is offended by anything. Simple, huh?
By Jon
April 18, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this
Mr.Liberty is a complete idiot. If this were a totalitarian empire, you wouldnt have the rights to say what you did. Get a life, anti-US zealot.