The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Kagan Fight Could Go Late Tonight; UPDATE: Video of ACOG Testimony; UPDATE II: Kagan Lobbied AMA, Too UPDATE III: ‘Late’? Recessed at 5:35

Posted on | June 30, 2010 | 52 Comments

UPDATE 5:45 p.m. ET: Yeah. Three days, very few tough questions, and Pat Leahy closed by congratulating her that this would likely be the last time she ever had to testify. But is it really?

Funeral plans for the late Sen. Robert Byrd will affect the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings schedule Thursday and Friday, and Republican sources say it is very unlikely that the committee will vote on Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination until after the Fourth of July recess. . . .

PREVIOUSLY: Here’s today’s earlier exchange between Sen. Orrin Hatch and Elena Kagan:

Via the Weekly Standard‘s John McCormack, who is the Joe Jonas of DC political reporters. (By that analogy, Byron York would be Roger Daltrey and I suppose I’d be the scraggly bass guitarist in Molly Hatchet.)

Philip Klein of the American Spectator has a transcript of the exchange between Hatch and Kagan.

UPDATE: American United for Life says Kagan also intervened to influence the American Medical Association’s position on partial-birth abortion:

During Elena Kagan’s service in the Clinton White House, she urged the President to oppose any meaningful restrictions on partial-birth abortion.  As part of this effort, our attorneys have learned that Kagan worked to change the positions of two major medical groups – the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Medical Association (AMA).
Kagan’s lobbying for changes to medical associations’ positions while in the White House is further evidenced by an email found in her White House documents, where Kagan clearly tried to change the position of another medical group, the American Medical Association (AMA):
When discussing whether the AMA could reverse its policy that there is not an identified situation in which partial-birth abortion is the only appropriate method of abortion, ethical concerns surround it, and that it should not be used unless it is absolutely necessary, Kagan stated: “We agreed to do a bit of thinking about whether we (in truth, HHS) could contribute to that effort [convincing the AMA to reverse their policy]. Chuck and I are meeting with the AG on Tuesday; Donna offered to send over some doctors this week (though we don’t know who or when) to give a medical briefing.”
In other words, Kagan was so opposed to the passage of a ban on partial-birth abortion, she hoped that ACOG and the AMA would suppress or modify their views and aggressively worked to make that happen.

More at Americans United for Life.

UPDATE 3:55 p.m. ET: Steve Ertelt of LifeSiteNews:

The pressure on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has jumped this week thanks to a memo she wrote during the Clinton administration showing her pressuring a medical group to change its position on partial-birth abortion. Now, new files indicated Kagan also pressured a second group. . . .
The email has Kagan clearly trying to change the position of another medical group, the American Medical Association.

And you gotta love Ace of Spades:

If the law’s on your side, argue the law.
If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
If neither is on your side — lobby friendly industry groups to change their reporting of the facts.

PREVIOUSLY: Sources on Capitol Hill tell me that today’s second round of questioning for Elena Kagan in the Senate Judiciary Committee may go as late as 9 p.m. tonight. So far — it’s just past noon — neither Jeff Sessions nor Orrin Hatch has brought up the “smoking gun” memo.

Ed Morrissey has more.

Uh-oh. Spoke too soon — Hatch just brought it up.

UPDATE: The Underground Conservative has a good round-up on the Kagan-ACOG memo.

UPDATE II: Orrin Hatch raised the question bluntly: “Did you write that memo?” After some dancing around, Kagan finally admitted, “The document is certainly in my handwriting,” but then said that what she was trying to do was to make sure the document from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists accurately reflected their views.

That explanation seems kind of wacky to me. Why would ACOG be coordinating its policy statement with the White House in the first place? Didn’t ACOG already know what it wanted to say without feedback from a White House staffer? So why was ACOG “clearing” its message with the Clinton administration?

Kagan can obviously expect more questioning about this.

UPDATE III: The blogosphere is slamming today:

The Judiciary Committee just recessed for lunch. Human Events reporter Elisabeth Meinecke offers an inside glimpse of the NASCAR-style operations that go on behind the scene during these “pit stops.”

UPDATE IV: They’re back from lunch now, and Sen. Kyl just finished raking Kagan over the coals on the Commerce Clause. Meanwhile, we’re linked in a round-up by Bob Belvedere at the Camp of the Saints, and Cassy Fiano asks the basic question about the ACOG memo:

Why would ACOG need to be coordinating their statement with the White House before it was released if there was not a pro-abortion agenda being advanced?

Category: Abortion, Senate, Supreme Court

Comments

52 Responses to “Kagan Fight Could Go Late Tonight; UPDATE: Video of ACOG Testimony; UPDATE II: Kagan Lobbied AMA, Too UPDATE III: ‘Late’? Recessed at 5:35”

  1. The Underground Conservative
    June 30th, 2010 @ 4:22 pm

    The document is certainly in my handwriting

    How Clintonesque. Reminds me of classic like “Depending on what the meaning of the word is is” and “We were never alone although I thought we were.”

    Either you wrote it or you didn’t. It’s like being sort of pregnant.

  2. The Underground Conservative
    June 30th, 2010 @ 12:22 pm

    The document is certainly in my handwriting

    How Clintonesque. Reminds me of classic like “Depending on what the meaning of the word is is” and “We were never alone although I thought we were.”

    Either you wrote it or you didn’t. It’s like being sort of pregnant.

  3. Pat
    June 30th, 2010 @ 4:39 pm

    “Kagan can obviously expect more questioning about this.”

    I certainly hope so. I’m waiting on someone to ask about her medical degree.

  4. Pat
    June 30th, 2010 @ 12:39 pm

    “Kagan can obviously expect more questioning about this.”

    I certainly hope so. I’m waiting on someone to ask about her medical degree.

  5. Cassy Fiano » Elena Kagan’s partial birth abortion distortion
    June 30th, 2010 @ 1:36 pm

    […] did eventually reluctantly admit that the handwriting in the memo is hers when questioned by Orrin Hatch. Orrin Hatch raised the question bluntly: “Did you write that […]

  6. Elena Kagan’s partial birth abortion distortion | Live Action Blog – Human Rights, Abortion, and Life
    June 30th, 2010 @ 1:37 pm

    […] did eventually reluctantly admit that the handwriting in the memo is hers when questioned by Orrin Hatch. Orrin Hatch raised the question bluntly: “Did you write that […]

  7. Elena Kagan, OB-LIE [Updated Below] « The Camp Of The Saints
    June 30th, 2010 @ 1:55 pm

    […] only conclusion I can come to based on Stacy’s reporting: Elena Kagan is […]

  8. Joe
    June 30th, 2010 @ 6:55 pm

    I do not mind them staying late, provided they can follow up a question and pin her down.

  9. Joe
    June 30th, 2010 @ 2:55 pm

    I do not mind them staying late, provided they can follow up a question and pin her down.

  10. Steven Ertelt
    June 30th, 2010 @ 7:39 pm

    LIfeNews.com had this two weeks ago (see http://www.lifenews.com/nat6412.html) and as you noted she also tried to influence the AMA. http://www.lifenews.com/nat6483.html

  11. Steven Ertelt
    June 30th, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

    LIfeNews.com had this two weeks ago (see http://www.lifenews.com/nat6412.html) and as you noted she also tried to influence the AMA. http://www.lifenews.com/nat6483.html

  12. The Kagan Hearings May Go Late Tonight. | Little Miss Attila
    June 30th, 2010 @ 4:15 pm

    […] I’ll refer you to Stacy and Smitty, who are following this closely and have an excellent roundup on the infamous Kagan memo and its […]

  13. Joe
    June 30th, 2010 @ 9:40 pm

    Oh. Baby. Obama.

    We should send 11 year old girls to question Elena Kagan apparently? Team Jacob or Edward? Why not have these hearings in friggin Forks, Washington while we are at it?

  14. Joe
    June 30th, 2010 @ 5:40 pm

    Oh. Baby. Obama.

    We should send 11 year old girls to question Elena Kagan apparently? Team Jacob or Edward? Why not have these hearings in friggin Forks, Washington while we are at it?

  15. BigPapaPedroSux
    June 30th, 2010 @ 10:08 pm

    Once the embryo has a heartbeat which is at about three weeks then it should be allowed to live.

  16. BigPapaPedroSux
    June 30th, 2010 @ 10:08 pm

    Partial birth abortion is an abomination.

  17. BigPapaPedroSux
    June 30th, 2010 @ 6:08 pm

    Once the embryo has a heartbeat which is at about three weeks then it should be allowed to live.

  18. BigPapaPedroSux
    June 30th, 2010 @ 6:08 pm

    Partial birth abortion is an abomination.

  19. jefferson101
    June 30th, 2010 @ 10:22 pm

    Did anyone who has paid any attention to the Republican Party over the last 10 years or more even suspect that they would do anything but roll over and play dead on command?

    I’m not a Libertarian (Note the upper case “L” there). I may be a lower case “l” libertarian on some social issues, but I’m not even close to libertarian regarding the Constitution.

    And I’m pretty much a Paleoconservative regarding financial issues. But none of that changes the fact that I’m sick and tired of the .Gov messing with everything with so many rules and regulations that we can’t breathe twice without official permission.

    Be it sucking Oil out of the Gulf, the Im-Ex bank loaning money to Bycrus, or whatever else, we’re drowning in .Gov regulations. And Kagan will only make it worse.

    Either Filibuster her or don’t expect me to donate a dime to you, regardless of which Party you claim to belong to!

    “And that’s the name of that tune.”

  20. jefferson101
    June 30th, 2010 @ 6:22 pm

    Did anyone who has paid any attention to the Republican Party over the last 10 years or more even suspect that they would do anything but roll over and play dead on command?

    I’m not a Libertarian (Note the upper case “L” there). I may be a lower case “l” libertarian on some social issues, but I’m not even close to libertarian regarding the Constitution.

    And I’m pretty much a Paleoconservative regarding financial issues. But none of that changes the fact that I’m sick and tired of the .Gov messing with everything with so many rules and regulations that we can’t breathe twice without official permission.

    Be it sucking Oil out of the Gulf, the Im-Ex bank loaning money to Bycrus, or whatever else, we’re drowning in .Gov regulations. And Kagan will only make it worse.

    Either Filibuster her or don’t expect me to donate a dime to you, regardless of which Party you claim to belong to!

    “And that’s the name of that tune.”

  21. Joe
    June 30th, 2010 @ 10:29 pm

    Well since the Kagan hearings were a complete waste of time…

    Here is Andrew Breitbart beating Andrew Sullivan like a baby harp seal.

  22. Joe
    June 30th, 2010 @ 6:29 pm

    Well since the Kagan hearings were a complete waste of time…

    Here is Andrew Breitbart beating Andrew Sullivan like a baby harp seal.

  23. Bob Belvedere
    July 1st, 2010 @ 12:21 am

    Thanks for the Breitbart Bash, Joe – I needed that.

  24. Bob Belvedere
    June 30th, 2010 @ 8:21 pm

    Thanks for the Breitbart Bash, Joe – I needed that.

  25. Joe
    July 1st, 2010 @ 1:27 am

    Given I can get enough Twilight banter from my 11 year old daughter, I decided to look for other news than Kagan today. Andrew Sullivan decided to go completely off his rockers, bonkers mad today. People have noticed.

    Ace does a pretty good job today of pointing out his complete insanity.

    As does Slublog, pointing out his hypocrisy.

    Sullivan is not insane. He knows he is full of shit. But he is embarassed he got caught being a lying partisan hack. So he is doubling down. He will continue intentionally lying about Palin, hoping that if he repeats his lies long enough eventually it will stick.

    Note that Sullivan even ignores that the object of his affection, Levi Johnson, denies Trig is his son.

  26. Joe
    June 30th, 2010 @ 9:27 pm

    Given I can get enough Twilight banter from my 11 year old daughter, I decided to look for other news than Kagan today. Andrew Sullivan decided to go completely off his rockers, bonkers mad today. People have noticed.

    Ace does a pretty good job today of pointing out his complete insanity.

    As does Slublog, pointing out his hypocrisy.

    Sullivan is not insane. He knows he is full of shit. But he is embarassed he got caught being a lying partisan hack. So he is doubling down. He will continue intentionally lying about Palin, hoping that if he repeats his lies long enough eventually it will stick.

    Note that Sullivan even ignores that the object of his affection, Levi Johnson, denies Trig is his son.

  27. Bob Belvedere
    July 1st, 2010 @ 3:15 am

    No gg! I’m disappointed.

  28. Bob Belvedere
    June 30th, 2010 @ 11:15 pm

    No gg! I’m disappointed.

  29. Joe
    July 1st, 2010 @ 3:41 am

    gg, yeah we are stuck with her. I do not disagree with you that barring her ripping her clothes off tomorrow and streaking around the Senate chambers (or worse yet going Andrew Sullivan bonkers), she is probably going to get confirmed. How does it feel? I cannot say I am thrilled by it, but it is a lot less bad than if she were replacing a Scalia or Thomas.

  30. Joe
    June 30th, 2010 @ 11:41 pm

    gg, yeah we are stuck with her. I do not disagree with you that barring her ripping her clothes off tomorrow and streaking around the Senate chambers (or worse yet going Andrew Sullivan bonkers), she is probably going to get confirmed. How does it feel? I cannot say I am thrilled by it, but it is a lot less bad than if she were replacing a Scalia or Thomas.

  31. Bob Belvedere
    July 1st, 2010 @ 10:50 am

    I knew you’d come through, gg.

  32. Bob Belvedere
    July 1st, 2010 @ 2:50 pm

    I knew you’d come through, gg.

  33. On Kagan’s Nomination, I’d Like a Do-Over
    July 1st, 2010 @ 10:53 am

    […] capable of answering those questions but  would prefer not to reveal what she knows or what she’s written, which is just as bad (also via memeorandum).I can’t imagine the President is very happy […]

  34. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 1st, 2010 @ 6:46 pm

    Don’t worry, gg; unless RBG retires before January, it’ll be the last time Republicans roll over for a Democrat nominee, and, unless someone leaves before 2013, the last time that a Democrat will appoint a Supreme Court nominee.

    So enjoy it while it lasts. Just don’t get too excited – you might make a mess in your pants.

  35. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 1st, 2010 @ 2:46 pm

    Don’t worry, gg; unless RBG retires before January, it’ll be the last time Republicans roll over for a Democrat nominee, and, unless someone leaves before 2013, the last time that a Democrat will appoint a Supreme Court nominee.

    So enjoy it while it lasts. Just don’t get too excited – you might make a mess in your pants.

  36. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 1st, 2010 @ 8:55 pm

    Ironic, given your statement at #17, I can do absolutely nothing but take my hat (Burberry, cute, somewhat floppy, because I haven’t joined the Axis of the Fedora) off to your cognitive dissonance. All around this great country of ours, people feel the prick of conscience, intellectual confusion, and a certain uncertainty, simply because they lack your chameleon-like ability to change their positions on the barest of whims. It’s heartbreaking to know that people fritter their lives away, attempting to reconcile conflicting ideas, for want of your talents.

    With attitude like yours, it would be fun to see the expression on your face if Pres. Obama gets re-elected.

    Isn’t that sort of like saying, “I would love to see the expression on your face if unicorns started doing the Macarena in your office”? Babe, I live in Massachusetts. When I hear fifty-something ladies say, with vim and vigour, “I’m never voting for Obama again!”, I know that the Democrats are screwed.

  37. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 1st, 2010 @ 4:55 pm

    Ironic, given your statement at #17, I can do absolutely nothing but take my hat (Burberry, cute, somewhat floppy, because I haven’t joined the Axis of the Fedora) off to your cognitive dissonance. All around this great country of ours, people feel the prick of conscience, intellectual confusion, and a certain uncertainty, simply because they lack your chameleon-like ability to change their positions on the barest of whims. It’s heartbreaking to know that people fritter their lives away, attempting to reconcile conflicting ideas, for want of your talents.

    With attitude like yours, it would be fun to see the expression on your face if Pres. Obama gets re-elected.

    Isn’t that sort of like saying, “I would love to see the expression on your face if unicorns started doing the Macarena in your office”? Babe, I live in Massachusetts. When I hear fifty-something ladies say, with vim and vigour, “I’m never voting for Obama again!”, I know that the Democrats are screwed.

  38. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 1st, 2010 @ 9:09 pm

    I think it was Bertrand Russell who said that “the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt”.

    Why would anyone quote an atheist who says that? An agnostic, perhaps, or a believer who made a long journey to his faith, but an atheist?

    Furthermore, when does that apply? We would hardly praise a scientist as intelligent if he were to doubt his algebra skills, nor an ornithologist if he were to doubt his ability to identify common birds by their song. Yet Russell demands that of us – Russell, who is “cocksure” in his atheism but derides those who are certain of the things one can be certain about.

    I mean, if you’re going to quote an atheist on uncertainty, at least go with Rand, who had not taste for it.

  39. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 1st, 2010 @ 5:09 pm

    I think it was Bertrand Russell who said that “the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt”.

    Why would anyone quote an atheist who says that? An agnostic, perhaps, or a believer who made a long journey to his faith, but an atheist?

    Furthermore, when does that apply? We would hardly praise a scientist as intelligent if he were to doubt his algebra skills, nor an ornithologist if he were to doubt his ability to identify common birds by their song. Yet Russell demands that of us – Russell, who is “cocksure” in his atheism but derides those who are certain of the things one can be certain about.

    I mean, if you’re going to quote an atheist on uncertainty, at least go with Rand, who had not taste for it.

  40. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 2nd, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

    The markets predict that there is about 60% chance that Pres. Obama will be re-elected.

    Funny you should mention that; I’m still kicking myself for not buying in for Senator Brown about ten days before the election, when they gave him less than a 10% chance of winning.

    Do the math. 🙂

  41. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 2nd, 2010 @ 10:20 am

    The markets predict that there is about 60% chance that Pres. Obama will be re-elected.

    Funny you should mention that; I’m still kicking myself for not buying in for Senator Brown about ten days before the election, when they gave him less than a 10% chance of winning.

    Do the math. 🙂

  42. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 2nd, 2010 @ 2:24 pm

    As for everything else: nice ad hominems. I was merely pointing out that Russell is intellectually inconsistent, and that him saying something does not make it true. As a scientist, it really irks me when people do things like quote someone and pretend that it’s absolute, infallible truth. “Well, as Joe Schmoe said, ‘The leaf turns upon itself,’ so you’re wrong.” I mean, isn’t it incumbent upon you to actually find a reliable, measurable way of determining what constituents both intellect and stupidity, as well as “cocksure” and “uncertain”, do a study, and give us the R-squared value?

  43. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 2nd, 2010 @ 10:24 am

    As for everything else: nice ad hominems. I was merely pointing out that Russell is intellectually inconsistent, and that him saying something does not make it true. As a scientist, it really irks me when people do things like quote someone and pretend that it’s absolute, infallible truth. “Well, as Joe Schmoe said, ‘The leaf turns upon itself,’ so you’re wrong.” I mean, isn’t it incumbent upon you to actually find a reliable, measurable way of determining what constituents both intellect and stupidity, as well as “cocksure” and “uncertain”, do a study, and give us the R-squared value?

  44. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 2nd, 2010 @ 3:24 pm

    gg: let’s do a reality check. I live in Massachusetts. I’m a hard-core conservative but was absolutely shocked by the support I saw for stopping the Obama agenda in Washington. Six months ago, 45-year-old investment bankers were literally lined up out the door of campaign HQ, waiting to cold-call total strangers on behalf of Scott Brown. HQ told people to only call a handful of strangers, keep it quick, so that everyone could participate.

    Does that mean that MA will go GOP in 2012? That’s not anything I ever said. But when people in the bluest of the blue states want Obama’s agenda shut down, the man doesn’t have a prayer of winning swing states.

    Look at the races. PA12, NY23 are considered “losses” for the conservative movement, but the Dems who won those did so by running against Obama and DC.

    Point to a federal race, run in the last ten months, in which a candidate won by supporting ObamaCare, cap-and-trade, and the stimulus.

    Rather than wasting your time snarking at a woman with an engineering degree and a law degree (i.e. smarter than you are), why not actually look at the last batch of races, rate the candidates by where their campaigns fell on socialised medicine, cap-and-trade, and the stimulus, and then tell me whether or not people seem to like the Obama agenda. I’m looking around and am well-aware that people are appalled.

  45. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 2nd, 2010 @ 11:24 am

    gg: let’s do a reality check. I live in Massachusetts. I’m a hard-core conservative but was absolutely shocked by the support I saw for stopping the Obama agenda in Washington. Six months ago, 45-year-old investment bankers were literally lined up out the door of campaign HQ, waiting to cold-call total strangers on behalf of Scott Brown. HQ told people to only call a handful of strangers, keep it quick, so that everyone could participate.

    Does that mean that MA will go GOP in 2012? That’s not anything I ever said. But when people in the bluest of the blue states want Obama’s agenda shut down, the man doesn’t have a prayer of winning swing states.

    Look at the races. PA12, NY23 are considered “losses” for the conservative movement, but the Dems who won those did so by running against Obama and DC.

    Point to a federal race, run in the last ten months, in which a candidate won by supporting ObamaCare, cap-and-trade, and the stimulus.

    Rather than wasting your time snarking at a woman with an engineering degree and a law degree (i.e. smarter than you are), why not actually look at the last batch of races, rate the candidates by where their campaigns fell on socialised medicine, cap-and-trade, and the stimulus, and then tell me whether or not people seem to like the Obama agenda. I’m looking around and am well-aware that people are appalled.

  46. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 2nd, 2010 @ 4:04 pm

    gg, if you are so fucking brilliant, please give us the basis for your belief in such. I mean, you’re not telling us what you do for a living, what your educational background is, where you blog (if you do at all), so we have no way of measuring your reasoning ability except for your rambling, incoherent, inconsistent bullshit.

    While you’re at it, give us some way of measuring intellectual ability. (We already determined that you are “cocksure” about 2012, so Bertrand Russell leaves us with a draw.)

  47. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 2nd, 2010 @ 12:04 pm

    gg, if you are so fucking brilliant, please give us the basis for your belief in such. I mean, you’re not telling us what you do for a living, what your educational background is, where you blog (if you do at all), so we have no way of measuring your reasoning ability except for your rambling, incoherent, inconsistent bullshit.

    While you’re at it, give us some way of measuring intellectual ability. (We already determined that you are “cocksure” about 2012, so Bertrand Russell leaves us with a draw.)

  48. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 2nd, 2010 @ 4:10 pm

    gg: self-professed degrees? Stacy’s met me. DaTechGuy has met me. Dan Collins met me. Ace of Spades met me. I’ll be more than happy to fax a copy of my diplomas to any of these guys, who can confirm for you (should meeting me not be enough) that I do have the educational credentials I claim.

    (I an also send along the non-classified engineering projects that I did back in the day, college transcripts including graduate-level quantum mechanics and math courses, copies of my work on my law journal, papers I wrote in school, proof of my bar passage, the papers I filled out for a high-level security clearance, proof of my graduation with Latin honours from law school, and a citation to the law review article that I worked on. If you feel like going way back, I still have copies of my standardised test scores – LSAT, GMAT, SAT, and science AP courses, my high school class rank, you name it.)

    And you? Bring it, whiny bitch. Bring it.

  49. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 2nd, 2010 @ 12:10 pm

    gg: self-professed degrees? Stacy’s met me. DaTechGuy has met me. Dan Collins met me. Ace of Spades met me. I’ll be more than happy to fax a copy of my diplomas to any of these guys, who can confirm for you (should meeting me not be enough) that I do have the educational credentials I claim.

    (I an also send along the non-classified engineering projects that I did back in the day, college transcripts including graduate-level quantum mechanics and math courses, copies of my work on my law journal, papers I wrote in school, proof of my bar passage, the papers I filled out for a high-level security clearance, proof of my graduation with Latin honours from law school, and a citation to the law review article that I worked on. If you feel like going way back, I still have copies of my standardised test scores – LSAT, GMAT, SAT, and science AP courses, my high school class rank, you name it.)

    And you? Bring it, whiny bitch. Bring it.

  50. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 2nd, 2010 @ 4:37 pm

    Oh, bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. Master’s at 22? From where? University of Phoenix? You’re killing me here.

    Prove it. I’m sure that Stacy would be happy to be the repository of our respective credentials and determine if they are accurate. (Well, if we hit the tip jar before his daughter’s wedding, or sent along some cigarettes and hard liquor, he would.)

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin