My Email Exchange with a Childish Professor

Justin Head's picture
By Justin Head at 3:52PM

I am an editorial writer for my school newspaper at Ole Miss, and I wrote this article about a week ago. It discusses how the Democrat and Republican Parties are disregarding the express constitutional limits placed on them by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. My article focused primarily on the current debate over the public option for healthcare.

Evidently, what I had to say angered a certain professor of modern languages at Ole Miss.  He soon emailed me expressing his discontent.

Professor

Click "Read more here" to read the email exchange that followed: (If you want to read the full story, click on the link to my original article at the top of the post)

Professor of Modern Languages:

Justin,

In today's piece, you say there are 18 powers given to the
legislature, but you neglect to list them. It would have been much too
cumbersome to do so, but the 18th reads thus:

"[The legislature has the power t]o make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of
the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The founding fathers knew they couldn't anticipate all needs of the
country as it went forward, and so this catch-all phrase--open to
interpretation, of course--is there to provide flexibility.

You can interpret it differently from me, but the issue is not nearly
as cut and dry as you assert it to be in your piece today.

Professor XXXX

My response:

It is very cut and dry. The Constitution says in the 9th and 10th amendments that any power not granted to the government by the Constitution is left up to the states and to the people. A public option for healthcare is not listed as a power, and neither are a lot of other powers that our government is using these days, therefore they are not allowed to legislate on them. It is not open to interpretation to anybody but lawyers and others who wish to assert their will onto others or vote themselves benefits. 

Also, there are not much more powers listed in the Constitution other than those 18. A great deal of it is procedure for elections and so forth. Then you have the amendments, which mostly put restrictions on government. So it is rather cut and dry. The necessary and proper clause gives the government the ability to do what is proper to carry out the powers granted to it. It, therefore, may not do anything that allows it to carry out other powers not listed. 
And the founders did realize they might not have had all the knowledge for governing the country, that is why they wrote Article 5 laying down an amendment process. They did not write the necessary and proper clause because they felt they could not anticipate the needs of the country, they created a separate article for that. 

Also, by reviewing the records of the Constitutional Convention, it is very clear the necessary and proper clause was not meant for what you say it was. Gunning Bedford actually proposed a clause that would do just what you said the necessary and proper clause does and it was rejected. George Nicholas told the Virginia ratifying convention that the necessary and proper clause, quote, "only enables Congress to carry into execution the powers given to them, but gives them no additional power." Alexander Hamilton held the same view in the Federalist No. 33. Besides, if they intentionally put a phrase in the Constitution that gave the government full power to legislate on things not listed in the Constitution without amending the Constitution, what was the purpose of the Constitution then?

It is very clear the Constitution severely limits the powers for the federal government. And, as you said, it would have been too cumbersome to list all 18 powers. I also only have so much room in my columns and I have to use space wisely. Hope that clears a few things up. 

Sincerely, 
Justin Head


2nd response from Professor of Modern Languages:

Justin,

I think you are naive, and I am not taking advice on constitutional
law, if you'll excuse me, from some undergrad. Learn some humility,
because otherwise you come across as some know-it-all, who really
doesn't know nearly as much as you think you do.

Sorry, but someone had to say it.


My 2nd response:

First off, I'm not an undergrad, do some research and grow up yourself. If you don't want the input from "some undergrad" then stop writing email's attempting to sound like some intelligent professor to students who appear in the school newspaper. Your argument was cliche and something I would expect from a freshman. I'm sorry that I decided to write a column in the paper and my opinions don't happen to sit well with you. My editor wants editorials from me so that is what I write.  
 
And thank you for falling into the category of adults who blow off arguments of those younger than them by calling them naive. If reading books and doing research on topics that I write about qualifies me as naive, then I'm sorry. I was told when I was younger that reading was a good thing. My arguments on the Constitution do not come directly from myself, but from authors schooled on the subject. They are historians, economists, and lawyers. Perhaps it would behoove you to read some of them too.
 
It's really saddening that a professor at our university would write an email to a student disagreeing with them and then make an absurd ad hominem attack on the student for deciding to engaging in the debate. I'm sorry you feel my arguments are not worthy of consideration because I happen to have been born after you were. But I feel as if you are the one acting childish in this situation. Next time try retaliating through subject matter and not emotional absurdities. Good day.


3rd response from Professor of Modern Languages:

Justin,

Upon rereading my response, I need to apologize, because what I meant
to write or should have written was "You are BEING naive," not you ARE
naive. So you have my apologies for that slip, much like your typo.

Reading books only gets you so far, my friend, and believe me, I've
read many, many more than you. I have also twice as much life
experience than you which includes living in several states and
countries.

So yes, you are being naive, and immature, but those are qualities
that many young men possess. Moreover, the fact that you don't address
me in your replies might be interpreted as disrespectful--you did that
during our last debate as well. And I think I pointed it out to
you...or maybe not. I'd have to go back and look.

The point is, Justin, that when I or someone else raises an objection
to your argument, you don't try to counter their points. You try to
overwhelm them with information from peripheral concerns or, if the
tone of your email is any indication, to shout them down.

With more life experience, more reading, and more thinking, your views
will mature and ripen.

Again, my apologies for my awkward turn of phrase. Much like during
our last debate, I'll say now that I don't intend to reply and will
leave the last word to you.


My 3rd response:

If I try to shout people out, you try to make their points seem null and void because of their age and experience. Perhaps I have more reading and experience in this area than you. Only perhaps, not saying I do. However, judging by your argument, I would have to say you don't have a great background in this information. 

I'm sorry I'm being naive, I'm sorry I'm being immature. I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to do when YOU email ME. Perhaps I should respond with an agreement that you are right since you are obviously wise beyond my years, or simply say nothing. There is not much I can say to move you past this point. You use my age as an argument to somehow prove you are correct. If I overwhelm with information, you simply leave out any information that would seem to prove your point and attack people on personal grounds. Evidently, I should wait until I am in my 40's to become involved in any type of debate. At least I did not engage in argumentative fallacies to get my point across. Also, the information I gave you was not a peripheral concern. It dealt directly with the issue at hand. An understanding of the history of our Constitution helps prove the language and intention of its clauses. I usually try not to counter with points of which I have no information to back them up. Not to mention, I brought up three instances as my examples. I would hardly say that is overwhelming.

Obviously, judging by this ridiculous argument, books have only gotten you so far. The fact that I sit here and defend myself, instead of my argument, shows that you have taken a debate out of the realm of fact and into one of personal attributes. If I am being immature for defending my point with too much information, I am sorry. I cannot find any instance where I showed any immaturity in my response. I simply countered your point with a few historical examples. I did not just throw out some information that serves no purpose. Also, I was not at all mad when I wrote that response. There was no shouting down going on. I simply stated my points. If I didn't do it in a manner that was pleasing enough to you I am sorry. Yet, unfortunately, it is all too easy for a professor on a power trip to accuse a student of being immature. What exactly was so immature about my response? Was it immature because I gave too much information, or just because I decided to respond. I do admit the second response was obviously one with a little anger in it simply because instead of a counterpoint, I got a personal insult. Perhaps I am somewhat naive, but that is relative term, and one you have chosen to use in replace of debatable counterpoints. You show huge naivete by underestimating a human being you do not know simply because they have less life experience. However, I don't write columns on all areas of life. I write columns on the political realm. And my information comes from those who have lived in other countries, and those that might even have more life experience than you.

It seems a quality older men possess is being stubborn and unable to listen to anybody who's age is not competitive with their own. It's no wonder our Congress is such a horrible representative body, most of them must be of your age and mindset. 

So after being accused of being naive, immature, a know-it-all, disrespectful, and incapable of showing humility, I sit at my computer defending my personality instead of my argument. Perhaps as years progress and I become as wise as you, I too will begin to argue based on the appeared shortcomings of those who disagree with me instead of using facts and information. Isn't it a political rule to change a debate you have little knowledge of by bringing up something negative about the person who is better informed? Yes I am younger than you, yes I have less life-experience. Does that mean I'm wrong when it comes to the Constitution, and any defense I give of it must be a naive and immature one? I don't know. But if that's the line you want to use, I can't stop you. It's just the fact that you use that defense and have professor before your name that saddens me. But I'm sure this message will come with no merit to you whatsoever. Because, undoubtedly it is true that I am a student that has been educated by professors. And if the conversation I am having now shows the attitude that professors have toward their students and gives insight into who professors truly are, I haven't learned as much as I thought I have. No doubt, professors with the mentality that students with opinions are naive and immature will produce nothing less of their students than what they suspect them of being. Therefore, if I am immature and naive in my information gathering, perhaps it is due to individuals, such as yourself, that have done nothing more than look down on me for being required to live through my 20's.

I'm sorry if you disagreed with my article. Perhaps if you decide to email me again I can be less immature and you will actually provide facts instead of an ad hominem  fallacy. Perhaps then, we can engage in a debate. Until then, good day.


Final response from Professor of Modern Language

Justin,

I said I wouldn't respond, and I'm not going to, not right now.
Frankly, it's just been a crazy day and I'm pretty tired.

I just wanted to point out that your DM by-line says that you're a
"senior accountancy major," which lead me to think you were an
undergrad. So that's where I got that info. Again, sorry if that was
an incorrect statement.


End conversation exchange. 

Perhaps I let him get under my skin. I should have ended the exchange when he decided to begin the ad hominem attacks. However, I felt it was worthy of sharing. 

 

wow. Great job at defending yourself. Very well put. Thanks for sharing

Rachel Kania's picture

I read just about all of the major posts from YAL and I've got to say this is one of my favorites so far. The subject of the necessary and proper is clause is a very interesting one and it's apparent that the majority of people that argue about the powers of Congress have little to no understanding that the clause was clearly meant to limit the powers of Congress to enacting only the measures necessary (requisite) and proper to exercise the powers given to Congress in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. I'd be interested to hear what you think about the constitutionality of a central bank.

's picture

that was nothing short of awesome. Maybe you should write my response to the Executive Director for Arlen Specter's office. I wrote an aritcle about a townhall meeting he hosted on campus, and the director did not appreciate it, and wrote a letter to the editor. I for one cannot let his response slide without me saying anything. Plus the way I see it...if you write for a paper and  are not challenged by others to defend what you say (especially when it comes to the constitution) then you are not doing your job.

ferard's picture

The professor didn't even answer your most important question.   A constitution is designed to limit the power of government, so why would it bother list 18 powers and then allow the government to do whatever else politicians want, in addition?  It would be senseless.  The clause this professor uses to support his incorrect claim is the exact one that authorizes the government to perform the 18 duties you mentioned, in fact, and nothing more.

's picture

Wow this is a pretty neat correspondence, and I don't think I was the only one completely flabbergasted by his second response to you. Talk about doing a complete 180 from civil discourse and intellectual argumentation to sandbox name-calling and denigration. Despite his childish remarks and non-existent substantive arguments you handled yourself like a gentleman and a scholar. Great job.

's picture

Wow!

's picture

Justin,

I have little doubt the school administrators are embarrassed by this professor's logic. It should make you feel better that I'm sure for the sake of his own professional image he's deeply regretting arguing with you. 

If there's one thing I have no patience for it's "educators" who can't treat students as anything but school children. Reading this made me glad for the great teachers I have at the amazing small college I attend. 

's picture

Fantastic stuff! I loved your first response, but I must admit I was also very impressed with the way you handled defending yourself. Keep up the good work!

Joseph Brown's picture

Thanks everybody, 

I can only hope, for the sake of academia, that this guy's actions are not copied by other professors. But, unfortunately, I think that might not be the case. 

's picture

You should challenge him to a public debate on the Constitution. Student vs. "Professor." That would draw quite a crowd I believe.

's picture

So, he points out the commerce clause, you counter with the 9th and 10th, he calls you names, you point out that name calling isn't really debating, then he accuses you of not addressing his point.

That's intelligent discourse from a self-proclaimed intellectual?  God help us all.

 

's picture

What a fantastic job you did of debating your case. Good for you. 

's picture

Refer him to Judge Andrew Napolitano's excellent explanations of what the "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" clauses mean.  The congress is empowered to pass laws that are necessary and proper to exercise the delegated powers.  It's not a blanket authority to pass any laws that the congress deems worthwhile.

As for the "general welfare" clause, it's a limit.  It says that any laws the congress enacts must before the general welfare, and not for the specific benefit of some portion of the people or region of the country.

's picture

Justin you sound like a fundamentalist in your email and article. Not everyone cares what the constitution says like you do.

Besides, constitutions don't stop tyrants. You've become an expert on what the constitution says but can you say whether the constitution is just? Why do you think that the constitution should be obeyed?

's picture

I am sure Justin could have went into the weeds regarding natural rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc.  The professor's original attack on Justin's argument, however, was regarding the "necessary and proper" clause, which Justin quickly efficiently explained.

Equality 7-2521's picture

Bravo, my friend. Professor of Modern Languages, eh? Now when I hear that I think, Profe-- TOTAL DICKWAD.

's picture

The crux of the issue is the general welfare clause. Hamilton made the statement below and Washington asked for subsidies for agriculture in his first term illustrating that he held the same view. Neither of them called for unlimited government power though (obviously) because the term "general welfare" is a constraint as well as an expansion. In other words laws must not favor special interests over everyone else.

 

"The terms `general Welfare' were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limit than the `General Welfare' and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification or of definition.''

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

's picture

With regard to the 9th and 10th amendments, the 9th doesn't seem to do much for your argument and the 10th was the result of a recommendation that Massachusetts was allowed to give in trade for ratification. Their recommendation was: "That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised". In the 10th amendment the word "expressly" was left out. Besides, the power to collect taxes for the the "general welfare" is a power expressly delegated to the federal government anyway.

's picture

@Joseph Price: Hamilton is not the best of the Foounders to cite in reference to the general welfare clause. He was a Hobbesian mercantalist and leviathan statist who wanted the government to do far more than most who attended the convention. A better source would be James Madison, the Father of the Constitution,  who believed that the general welfare clause granted no additional powers whatsoever.  If you actually read the clause it states "to lay and collect taxes to...provide for...the general welfare," not spend them. This means that if the Federal goverment wishes to tax the states it could use as it's reasoning, "for the sake of the general welfare", but if it wishes to spend the money it must specify which of section eight's 18 clauses it is fulfilling by spending the taxes.

Obviously, the Hamiltonian view has dominated American history, but that doesn't mean that is the constitutionally or morally correct interpretation.

's picture

 

Does a father provide for his family without spending money?

In an era when conservatives attempt to brand the constitution as theirs exclusively  it's important to recognize the truth as found in the actual history.  For the idea that the constitution enshrines conservatism as supreme to hold up  you have to toss out and/or undermine the views of Hamilton (as you have done) and Washington which puts it on a shaky foundation to say the very least. People need to know this, especially in our day when for-profit opinion-makers have done so much to compromise our civility which is the foundation of our union itself.

's picture

Does a father provide for his family without spending money?

Weak analogy.  As I stated, there are clauses designated for allocation of resources[Section 8], the general welfare clause is meant to justify the acquisition of the resources in the first place, not summarize the jurisdiction of their allocation.

I don't consider myself, Hamilton, or Washington conservatives. I consider myself a libertarian, and Hamilton a mercantalist big-government statist who admired the vast state apparatus of the British Empire and wanted to emulate it in the United States. The Constitution does not enshrine conservativsm, it ensrhines limited government, balance of power, and natural rights. A true conservative by the name of Barry Goldwater once said, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." To defend liberty to it's entirety requires we reject the Hamiltonian interpretation of the Constitution as a document that grants the Federal government totalitarian control over society.

's picture

Oh I see, so the constitution grants the right to collect taxes for the general welfare, but the federal government must sit on the money. Now it all makes sense. I guess the enumerated powers only refer to mental power? Since when does totalitarian control promote the "general welfare"? The term is in itself  a limit on federal power, though not according to the mass-marketed understanding.

's picture

but the federal government must sit on the money

Didn't say that.

enumerated powers only refer to mental power

Didn't say that either. The enumerated powers consist of the seventeen following clauses that specifically state what the federal government has the authority to do with the resources it has collected with the taxes acquired on the basis of providing for the general welfare.

Since when does totalitarian control promote the "general welfare"?

Virtually any policy initiative can be rationalized to be promoting the general welfare. If the only criteria for executing a policy initiative is whether or not it provides for the general welfare, there are essentially no constraints on federal power. According to the loose Hamiltonian interpretation of the Constitution, if one could convince the public that the killing of every family's first born child will somehow promote the general welfare, the government would be well within its "implied powers" to execute this policy. This, of course, is absurd, as is the notion that the Founding Fathers would bother to specifically enumerate seventeen functions of government after they have written a geneal welfare clause that would encompass the aforementioned functions and other, non-prescribed functions, ad infinitum.

's picture

You say if the general welfare clause is an expansion of power why have enumerated powers and I say if federal power was limited to the enumerated powers why have a general welfare clause. By speaking of what the "founding fathers" did as if they were one you continue and insidious corporate-sponsored myth.  What they did do as one is give us a constitution with a general welfare clause and enumerated powers. They knew when to compromise for the greater good, in other words. If we can learn to also, we may still "keep the republic".

's picture

I say if federal power was limited to the enumerated powers why have a general welfare clause

I told you, to grant the federal government the power to lay and collect taxes, just as the clause itself makes abundantly clear. You're misreading of the clause is akin to leftists' misreading of the 2nd amendment to insinuate that only militias have rights to arm.

They knew when to compromise for the greater good

I'm not a utilitarian, and neither were most of the founders. They believed in natural law and natural rights, which meant protecting the minority from the will of the majority's "greater" good. We lost our Republic long ago when the Court first adopted the Hamiltonian persepective of the Constitution which granted the federal government imperialist, corporatist, and authoritarian powers.

's picture

Actually, you're mistaking the general welfare clause for the taxing and spending clause of which the general welfare clause is a part. In other words the power to lay and collect taxes is modified by the phrase "for the general welfare". Therefore, your interpretation amounts to whiting out those four words, which a champion of the constitution should never do. The clause explains how the tax money can be used, just like the other enumberated powers. They're there, they have meaning, and we should keep them.

's picture

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The clause itself, as all clauses do, has only one purpose: to assign and detail the powers of acquiring resources. If you want to somehow insinuate that the Founders would bother to write seventeen additional clauses for spending, when they already wrote one that gives them full discretion, then there is nothing I can say to convince you.

The clause explains how the tax money can be used, just like the other enumberated powers. They're there, they have meaning, and we should keep them.

Again, if you actually believe followers of John Locke who just fought a revolution to overthrow a tyrannical government, would allow a clause that gave the federal government complete discretionary power to impose any laws it deemed in the "general welfare", than there is nothing I can say to convince you.  Cheers.

's picture

John,

The general welfare clause is a limit on federal power, as I said previously and as Washington and Hamilton believed. It's not "complete discretionary power". That's why we have term limits, checks and balances, etc.

's picture

Very well done.

If I may suggest one thing: next time, apologize less as it has a psychologicaly weakening effect and your case and argument was otherwise strong.

 

's picture

I find amusing to see people appeal to the US constitution to avoid moral issues. Happily, not everyone is so shallow. I guess it helps avoid being labelled selfish.

And excuse me, but you *do* sound very immature about all this. His first email started by simply arguing that arguments regarding powers granted by the US constitution are not "cut and dried" and your reply started right off by saying that is was. Then you go on babbling about this and that, typically only providing evidence that support your views and ignoring any historical evidence that would challenge it. 

's picture

Yes the professor was blatantly guilty of ageism. It is not uncommon in academia to find people who are rude, condescending and think way too highly of themselves. However, you too missed the chance to show a difference in spirit. You could have slamdunked the professor on both arguments and manners but chose to roll in the mud with him. In short, there was no winner in this ugly name-calling contest but certainly a pair of ruffled losers.

's picture
's picture

Great and interesting article. You sound like a fundamentalist in your email and article. Not everyone cares what the constitution says like you do. Thanks for the topic.  Yeast Infection Home Remedy

's picture

http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add2/page.php?s=cialis-coupon >cialis coupon
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=karla-spice-nuevas-fotos >karla spice nuevas fotos
http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=mulheres-negr... >mulheres negras peladas
http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=pier-1-imports >pier 1 imports
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add2/page.php?s=cialis-and-montreal >cialis and montreal
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add2/page.php?s=cialis-work-for-women >cialis work for women
http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=song-of-hiawatha >song of hiawatha
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add/good.php?a=lime-green-default-layout >lime green default layout
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add/good.php?a=donk-for-sale-in-illinois >donk for sale in illinois
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=igor-karassik-pdf >igor karassik pdf
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=fotos-sexis-de-mailin-v... >fotos sexis de mailin villanueva
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=cari-from-mythbusters-fhm >cari from mythbusters fhm
http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=london-deelis... >london deelishis charles nude pics
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=amanda-beard-playboy >amanda beard playboy
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=calzones-de-dulce-maria >calzones de dulce maria
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add/good.php?a=todas-las-fotos-de-niurc... >todas las fotos de niurca marcos
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add2/page.php?s=dove-acquistare-cialis-... >dove acquistare cialis online
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=watch-karrine-steffans-... >watch karrine steffans superhead mr marcus
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add/good.php?a=mujeres-mamando-penes >mujeres mamando penes
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=truyen-doc-nguyen-ngoc >truyen doc nguyen ngoc

's picture

http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add2/page.php?s=cialis-coupon >cialis coupon
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=karla-spice-nuevas-fotos >karla spice nuevas fotos
http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=mulheres-negr... >mulheres negras peladas
http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=pier-1-imports >pier 1 imports
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add2/page.php?s=cialis-and-montreal >cialis and montreal
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add2/page.php?s=cialis-work-for-women >cialis work for women
http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=song-of-hiawatha >song of hiawatha
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add/good.php?a=lime-green-default-layout >lime green default layout
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add/good.php?a=donk-for-sale-in-illinois >donk for sale in illinois
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=igor-karassik-pdf >igor karassik pdf
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=fotos-sexis-de-mailin-v... >fotos sexis de mailin villanueva
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=cari-from-mythbusters-fhm >cari from mythbusters fhm
http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=london-deelis... >london deelishis charles nude pics
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=amanda-beard-playboy >amanda beard playboy
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=calzones-de-dulce-maria >calzones de dulce maria
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add/good.php?a=todas-las-fotos-de-niurc... >todas las fotos de niurca marcos
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add2/page.php?s=dove-acquistare-cialis-... >dove acquistare cialis online
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=watch-karrine-steffans-... >watch karrine steffans superhead mr marcus
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add/good.php?a=mujeres-mamando-penes >mujeres mamando penes
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=truyen-doc-nguyen-ngoc >truyen doc nguyen ngoc

's picture

http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=black-inverte... >black inverted bob wig
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=sample-blank-check >sample blank check
http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=science-inves... >science investigatory project examples
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add/good.php?a=ver-ninas-cojiendo-grati... >ver ninas cojiendo gratis conpollas grandes
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add/good.php?a=myspace-blocked-at-school >myspace blocked at school
http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=free-21st-bir... >free 21st birthday speeches
http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=uri-ng-panitikan >uri ng panitikan
http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=cool-bedding-... >cool bedding for teens
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=maripili-rivera-desnuda >maripili rivera desnuda
http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=student-loan-... >student loan consolidation center
http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=big-tit-patrol >big tit patrol
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add/good.php?a=que-videos-porno-de-pano... >que videos porno de panochas
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=small-spider-bite-or-sc... >small spider bite or scabies
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add2/page.php?s=cialis-generic-purchase >cialis generic purchase
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=heather-brooke-videos >heather brooke videos
http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=w-a-c-lighting >w a c lighting
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add/good.php?a=nicole-brown-simpson-fun... >nicole brown simpson funeral
http://wolfganghering.de/presse/new/thread.php?x=heidi-steiner-bears >heidi steiner bears
http://animations-galore.com/topsites/sitex/index.php?page=halimbawa-ng-... >halimbawa ng haiku
http://www.idebate.org/comics/wp-add2/page.php?s=free-trail-of-cialis >free trail of cialis

's picture

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.