Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Loudoun County Schools Defy FOIA Requests

—

by

Bob Rayner
in ,

Insignia, Loudon County Public Schools

by Kerry Dougherty

Luke Rosiak is the best investigative reporter in Virginia. There isn’t a close second.

Several years ago, The Daily Wire reporter uncovered Loudoun County Public Schools’ attempts to hide serial bathroom sexual assaults from the public.

Rosiak’s reporting ultimately resulted in the firing of former school superintendent Scott Ziegler. And the election of Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who made parents’ rights a cornerstone of his campaign.

Rosiak is tracking down another potential blockbuster, but school officials in Loudoun are not cooperating. Apparently, they never learn.

The Daily Wire is now headed to court to try to wrench documents from the hands of secretive Loudoun school officials. These documents will reveal just how much public money the county’s school district blew in recent years settling embarrassing lawsuits.

So far, school officials are playing cute with FOIA, pretending that certain so-called privacy laws allow them to keep that information secret.

From The Daily Wire:

The Daily Wire on Tuesday sued the Virginia school system at the center of a rape coverup, stating that Loudoun County Public Schools is violating public records laws by refusing the news outlet’s requests for documentation on legal settlements.

Loudoun, like other school districts throughout the country, has abused “privacy” laws to refuse to turn over basic information under the guise of protecting children’s identities, even if children’s identities would not be exposed. The reference to inapplicable privacy laws suggests the school district’s real purpose may be to hide embarrassing conduct by administrators.

In other words, the school district is hiding behind so-called “privacy laws” to keep The Daily Wire — and us — in the dark.

In addition to asking a judge to force LCPS to release the document, it asks that the court issue “penalties” to LCPS communications officer Dan Adams “and any other Respondent this Court finds substantively involved in the decision to unlawfully withhold documents.”

If The Daily Wire succeeds it will be another David and Goliath legal victory for the tenacious conservative news outlet.

In 2021 The Daily Wire sued the Biden administration claiming OSHA lacked the authority to force private employers with more than 100 workers to mandate the Covid vaccine to all employees.

The Daily Wire declared that — win or lose — it would defy the OSHA rule. The company would not force its employees to take a vaccine. Sadly, many other large companies complied.

Ultimately, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with The Daily Wire. And just like that, the unconstitutional vaccine mandate was history.

The public has an absolute right to know if their tax dollars are being used as hush money to cover up unsavory activities in the schools. Let’s hope The Daily Wire prevails again in court and we all get to see what Loudoun County school officials are hiding.

Republished with permission from Kerry: Unemployed and Unedited. 

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

76 responses to “Loudoun County Schools Defy FOIA Requests”

  1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Just the tip of the iceburg. oh my!
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7779eaa07df7ef75989fe0693dc30589772d90463162ec5d615410cf74206c59.jpg

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Took me a second. They need more floor at the top.

      I’ve seen the “black hole” area rug.

    2. CAPT Jake Avatar
      CAPT Jake

      Nope. His rug was.
      … and a great broadcaster too.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/88231ae6b4a17a8b2c112a2e86ed00ec07f20dacb21f5e22017d482abcd39aec.jpg

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        Howard: Herb Mul-Key went to Nonay College.
        Don Meridith: I think that says “none” Howard.

        1. CAPT Jake Avatar
          CAPT Jake

          Classic

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Another sad obituary…. Balzac said “Behind great wealth is a great crime.” Behind all great crimes is private equity.

    https://newrepublic.com/post/178181/baltimore-sun-new-owner-smith-sinclair-insult-everyone-staff

  3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Again, Kerry misstates stuff. The Supreme Court did not rule the vaccine mandate unconstitutional. It ruled that OSHA did not have the authority to impose it. There is a difference. Justice Gorsuch said that the power to respond to the pandemic, “lies with the States and Congress, not OSHA.”
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      As far as I know, ‘The Daily Wire’ was not challenging a state or congressional vaccine mandate. They were challenging the OSHA vaccine mandate, and the OSHA mandate was ruled unconstitutional.

      While her wording may have been ambiguous, she did not misstate anything.

      This time.

      Now, to the subject of the article: Do you not think the public has a right to know if tax dollars are being used to cover up unsavory activities by administrators in public schools?

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Yes, I do.

        I stand by my statement: the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the mandate. It was a question, as Gorsuch said, of who decides. The Court ruled that OSHA did not have the authority to decide.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          So you’re telling us you didn’t even make it to page 15 of your own citation?

          “Whichever the doctrine, the point is the same. Both serve to prevent “government by bureaucracy supplanting government by the people.” A. Scalia, A Note on the Benzene Case, American Enterprise Institute, J. on Govt. & Soc., July–Aug. 1980, p. 27. And both hold their lessons for today’s case. On the one hand, OSHA claims the power to issue a nationwide mandate on a major question but cannot trace its authority to do so to any clear congressional mandate. On the other hand, if the statutory subsection the agency cites really did endow OSHA with the power it asserts, that law would likely constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. Under OSHA’s reading, the law would afford it almost unlimited discretion—and certainly impose no “specific restrictions” that “meaningfully constrai[n]” the agency. Touby v. United States, 500 U. S. 160, 166–167 (1991). OSHA would become little more than a “roving commission to inquire into evils and upon discovery correct them.” A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495, 551 (1935) (Cardozo, J., concurring). Either way, the point is the same one Chief Justice Marshall made in 1825: There are some “important subjects, which must be entirely regulated by the legislature itself,” and others “of less interest, in which a general provision may be made, and power given to [others] to fill up the details.” Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 43 (1825). And on no one’s account does this mandate qualify as some “detail.” ”

          The Court only rules on Constitutionality, it’s a very unique concept because we are the only ones that use it.

          So, less zeal to attack Kerry and more reading before posting.

          In addition, Chervon is dead and OHSA and the Executive doesn’t get to make Law anymore.

        2. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          I stand by my statement: the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the mandate.

          Yes, they did. They ruled on the constitutionality of OSHA’s vaccine mandate, which was the only vaccine mandate being challenged in the suit.

        3. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          So you’re telling us you didn’t even make it to page 15 of your own citation?

          “Whichever the doctrine, the point is the same. Both serve to prevent “government by bureaucracy supplanting government by the people.” A. Scalia, A Note on the Benzene Case, American Enterprise Institute, J. on Govt. & Soc., July–Aug. 1980, p. 27. And both hold their lessons for today’s case. On the one hand, OSHA claims the power to issue a nationwide mandate on a major question but cannot trace its authority to do so to any clear congressional mandate. On the other hand, if the statutory subsection the agency cites really did endow OSHA with the power it asserts, that law would likely constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. Under OSHA’s reading, the law would afford it almost unlimited discretion—and certainly impose no “specific restrictions” that “meaningfully constrai[n]” the agency. Touby v. United States, 500 U. S. 160, 166–167 (1991). OSHA would become little more than a “roving commission to inquire into evils and upon discovery correct them.” A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495, 551 (1935) (Cardozo, J., concurring). Either way, the point is the same one Chief Justice Marshall made in 1825: There are some “important subjects, which must be entirely regulated by the legislature itself,” and others “of less interest, in which a general provision may be made, and power given to [others] to fill up the details.” Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 43 (1825). And on no one’s account does this mandate qualify as some “detail.” ”

          The Court only rules on Constitutionality, it’s a very unique concept because we are the only ones that use it.

          So, less zeal to attack Kerry and more reading before posting.

          In addition, Chervon is dead and OHSA and the Executive doesn’t get to make Law anymore.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            So?

            That’s from the concurring opinion. He doesn’t have to read past page 9.

            Adding a clip from the “concurring opinions” and highlighting “constitutional” doesn’t make it part of the opinion, nor a ruling based on other than statute interpretation.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I don’t frankly care what he or you do, it’s irrelevant to the facts. Which you continue to ignore.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            The only fact that you presented (originally) was your assumption that Dick didn’t read to page 15.

            He didn’t have to. The opinion ended on page 9. That’s a fact.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            He didn’t, it was evident in his statement.

            Again, that’s irrelevant to facts.

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            While I have your attention. Page 15 is not in the court opinion. It’s in a “concurring opinion”.

            BTW, see how much more fun it is to have people respond to your comments?

          6. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Did I say it was the Court’s opinion?

            National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v
            Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration

            The question asked, was as follows:

            “Did the Occupational Safety & Health Administration exceed its authority in promulgating a rule mandating that employers with at least 100 employees require covered workers to receive a COVID–19 vaccine or else wear a mask and be subject to weekly testing?”

            OHSA was created via Congressional Law, the question was did their mandate provide them the authority to make such a sweeping rule. The answer is Constitutionally, no.

          7. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            In your insult of Dick, you cited page 15.

          8. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Again, where did I say it was the Courts Opinion?

        4. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          I stand by my statement: the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the mandate.

          Yes, they did. They ruled on the constitutionality of OSHA’s vaccine mandate, which was the only vaccine mandate being challenged in the suit.

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Can you point me to the language in the decisios that says that the OSHA rule violated a specific provision of the Constitution?

          2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Can you point me to the language in the decisios that says that the OSHA rule violated a specific provision of the Constitution?

          3. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Please provide cases heard by the SCOTUS that don’t involve Constitutional Law.

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx#:~:text=When%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20rules,legislative%20action%20can%20be%20taken.

          5. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            If you believe that link proves you correct, you’d be wrong.

          6. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Okay, let’s say I don’t believe what the Supreme Court says its job is. You do realize that is a link to the Supreme Court’s website, right? BTW, was the comment at the bottom about the types of rulings and prescriptions for corrective action highlighted? Just curious .

          7. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken”

            The interpretation based upon the Constitution. When deciding upon cases, they determine if is allowed via the Constitution or if it is not.

            See Marbury v Madison.

          8. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            See Glacier Cement v Teamsters. Find the word “Constitution” in the opinion.

          9. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            See argument from ignorance.

          10. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I have been. But apparently you won’t change.

          11. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            See San Diego Building Trades Council v Garmon 1959, which was the basis for decision.

            (Hint: 1st Amendment)

          12. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Marshall v. Marshall

          13. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            See Justice Ginsburg’s opinion referencing Cohens v Virginia, Supremacy Clause.

          14. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Try again. Not the supremacy clause, the probate exception, which is federal statute and not constitution.

          15. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Umm wrong, Article III Section 2.

            “In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review state criminal proceedings. Chief Justice Marshall wrote that the Court was bound to hear all cases that involved constitutional questions, and that this jurisdiction was not dependent on the identity of the parties in the cases. Marshall argued that state laws and constitutions, when repugnant to the Constitution and federal laws, were “absolutely void.” After establishing the Court’s jurisdiction, Marshall declared the lottery ordinance a local matter and concluded that the Virginia court was correct to fine the Cohens brothers for violating Virginia law. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review state criminal proceedings. Chief Justice Marshall wrote that the Court was bound to hear all cases that involved constitutional questions, and that this jurisdiction was not dependent on the identity of the parties in the cases. Marshall argued that state laws and constitutions, when repugnant to the Constitution and federal laws, were “absolutely void.” After establishing the Court’s jurisdiction, Marshall declared the lottery ordinance a local matter and concluded that the Virginia court was correct to fine the Cohens brothers for violating Virginia law.”

          16. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Re: Try again. SDBTC v Gormon holds state court claims are disabled when in conflict with NLRA. In Glacier, the court denied this claim, see last page, last paragraph.

            In the concurring opinons, not that they matter, 3 of the majority justices reach the same conclusion (NLRA does not preempt state courts) by two other paths.

          17. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “Re: Try again. SDBTC v Gormon [sic] holds state court claims are disabled when in conflict with NLRA. In Glacier, the court denied this claim, see last page, last paragraph.

            In the concurring opinons [sic], not that they matter, 3 of the majority justices reach the same conclusion (NLRA does not preempt state courts) by two other paths.”

            First and foremost, it’s Garmon nor Gormon and given your need to correct others, it needed to be said. Secondly, just because they denied something ,doesn’t mean it wasn’t through a Constitutional lens. They denied a Judgement based upon the application or lack thereof the 1st Amendment, plain and simple to anyone who isn’t looking to be argumentative.

          18. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Bye Matt. Put me back on blocked, or I shall you. You talk through your hat.

          19. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            “However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken”

            Thus the Title VII cite. It’s an interpretation of a statue, not involving Constitutional Law.

          20. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            ““However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken””

            In respect to their Constitutionality, which is exactly what was stated and I stated.

          21. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            That would requiring understanding the differences between “court opinion”, “concurring opinion”, and “dissenting opinion”.

          22. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            You, Sir, have the patience of Job. Or, if you’re a doctor, the patients of job.

          23. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            BTW, for Matt’s benefit since the resident [insert term of endearment (endeerment in the headlamp)] has blocked me, Bostock v. Clayton County.

            There the court ruled on the definition of the word “sex”, hardly an interpretation of the Constitutionality of Title VII.

            You can pass that along if you’d like.

          24. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Suppose there was a coffee clutch and the members vote on the question that one member should be shunned for his abrasive attitude.

            The vote is taken and it is 9-0 to uphold the expulsion, “Be it resolved that Nat is expelled for violating the rule against being combative by unanimous vote.” A concurring opinion is then expressed by one of the 9, “And, he’s fat too!”

            As a result, you can only cite statements in the first 9 pages of Dick’s link.

          25. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            BTW, for Matt’s benefit since the resident [insert term of endearment (endeerment in the headlamp)] has blocked me, Bostock v. Clayton County.

            There the court ruled on the definition of the word “sex”, hardly an interpretation of the Constitutionality of Title VII.

            You can pass that along if you’d like.

          26. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Disregarding your attempts to insult me, you’re wrong again (nothing new).

            Title VII is part of the Law and has Constitutional Implications, that is what the case was ruled upon.

            “There the court ruled on the definition of the word “sex”, hardly an interpretation of the Constitutionality of Title VII.”

            That’s not what the Court ruled on at all.

            Feel free to read the Majority Opinion, provided. I also realize you will not and will immediately attack me, because you can’t admit you’re wrong (ever).

            https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618

          27. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            What? You don’t have a link *.gov that says that?

          28. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            https://www.oyez.org/about

          29. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            The “org” is the giveaway. Their opinion carries the weight of a bucket of warm spit.

          30. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “The “org” is the giveaway. Their opinion carries the weight of a bucket of warm spit.”

            “Oyez (pronounced OH-yay)—a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law—is a multimedia archive devoted to making the Supreme Court of the United States accessible to everyone.”

            Please indicate where they provide opinion vs. direct quotations from Decisions and Summaries from SCOTUS.

          31. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            It’s your link. It’s your job to point to where they say the Supreme Court only rules on Constitutional issues. Or, did you forget what your original claim was and/or why you linked to them?

            In the cited case, the opinion mentions the Constitution once, and only to confirm that the law enacted made provision for the Religious Freedom protection. The bulk of the opinion was on the use of the word “sex” versus “gender”. They were determining the extents and limits based on the definition of a word, not the constitutionality. As such, a prescription for negating their ruling would be legislation changing the sex to gender, not a Constitutional Amendment. Normally, this would earn them the “activist justices” label. I’m certain some pundits did just that.

          32. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “It’s your link. It’s your job to point to where they say the Supreme Court only rules on Constitutional issues. Or, did you forget what your original claim was and/or why you linked to them?”

            Already provided.

            “In the cited case, the opinion mentions the Constitution once, and only to confirm that the law enacted made provision for the Religious Freedom protection. The bulk of the opinion was on the use of the word “sex” versus “gender”. They were determining the extents and limits based on the definition of a word, not the constitutionality. As such, a prescription for negating their ruling would be legislation changing the sex to gender, not a Constitutional Amendment. Normally, this would earn them the “activist justices” label. I’m certain some pundits did just that.”

            Your opinion is not fact, keep to topic at hand or don’t comment.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “Do you not think the public has a right to know if tax dollars are being used to cover up unsavory activities by administrators in public schools?”

        Are you saying settling lawsuits is somehow unsavory activity?

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          Perhaps not directly, but the behavior which resulted in the need to settle may be.

          My point is that the facts surrounding the settlement should be available to the public if tax payers’ money is being used to pay the settlement. Names of plaintiffs who are minors should, of course, be redacted, but leaving out specific names of victims/plaintiffs does not change the facts surrounding the settlement.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “Perhaps not directly, but the behavior which resulted in the need to settle may be.”

            If they are court cases, then the facts of the cases should be available through the courts. Petition the judge in the cases if they are sealed (for whatever reason).

            “Names of plaintiffs who are minors should, of course, be redacted, but leaving out specific names of victims/plaintiffs does not change the facts surrounding the settlement”

            I suspect the issue is that any sealed or redacted case information could lead the public to deduce the identity of the minors.

            The protections in FOIA are fairly broad and the lawyers know when they can be invoked. I would not be surprised if they lose this one but we shall see, I suppose.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      For what it’s worth, only the majority opinion counts. Concurring opinions, like those of the minority, are worth a warm bucket of spit. Amusing, but carry no weight and cannot be used in precedence.

      Couldn’t help but notice some misconstrued opinions.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      For what it’s worth, only the majority opinion counts. Concurring opinions, like those of the minority, are worth a warm bucket of spit. Amusing, but carry no weight and cannot be used in precedence.

      Couldn’t help but notice some misconstrued opinions especially on the scope of the Court’s rulings, to wit:
      “ When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.”

      So, not all rulings involve the Constitution, but any and all US statutes as well.

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Another sad obituary…. Balzac said “Behind great wealth is a great crime.” Behind all great crimes is private equity.

    https://newrepublic.com/post/178181/baltimore-sun-new-owner-smith-sinclair-insult-everyone-staff

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Yikes!

      That’s the kind of stuff you read?

      “His TV empire’s local Baltimore station has been keen on a series of coverage blaming the city’s Black, Democratic mayor, Brandon Scott, for a flurry of local issues, including ongoing gun violence and education-related issues.”

      Mayors get blamed when things go badly in a city and things have been going badly in Baltimore for a long time.

      “Campaign contributions by the 73-year-old have also generally veered Republican for the last couple decades …”

      Generally?

      Veered?

      No percentages? No examples?

      “If this first meeting is any indication, Smith’s takeover could mean the paper will soon be forced to mime changes at Sinclair-bought local stations, focusing on negative coverage of the state’s Black leadership, including Governor Wes Moore …”

      Examples?

      How is “focus” measured?

      Was the station critical of White Governor Hogan?

      This “article” is labeled breaking news?

      News?

  5. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    I am shocked that democrats aren’t for transparency.

    1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      Institutions. The first and number one job is to preserve itself. At all costs. There is so much dirt under this rug. Been going for decades.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        This rug?
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7779eaa07df7ef75989fe0693dc30589772d90463162ec5d615410cf74206c59.jpg

        Do you sweep it under, or just onto and it goes into the basement on its own?

        1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
          James Wyatt Whitehead

          It looks dark and might be snakes down there. Somebody should look though.

  6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “Luke Rosiak is the best investigative reporter in Virginia”

    No, he is not. He is a right wing partisan hack. But what he does belie is the old right wing tripe about universal liberal media bias. The ironic thing is that now he will likely be the recipient of some kind of Loudoun taxpayer funded lawsuit settlement. I am sure he will enjoy spending my money.

  7. Teddy007 Avatar
    Teddy007

    To call anyone at the DailyWire a journalist is a huge stretch and to call the DailyWire a new s organization is just plain wrong.

    And when did two incidents before a serial offender?

    The only way to read a DailyWire story is to have a huge amount of background information so one can figure out the spin and the omissions.

    And Loudoun County Public Schools trying to end AP/IB classes probably had more effect on the election but was ignored by the “journalist” at the DailyWire.

  8. killerhertz Avatar
    killerhertz

    Public schools… safe and effective

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Assault rifles… unsafe and effective.

      1. killerhertz Avatar
        killerhertz

        Assault vaccines killed more people than the AR-15 did last year

        1. how_it_works Avatar
          how_it_works

          Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than my gun.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          There’s a vaccine against assault? Schoolchildren should be vaccinated immediately.

          1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            When I take the 15 year old to the doctor I always request a shot. Even it she doesn’t need one. Pay back for putting up with teenie madness. I even offer to tip for the largest needle they have.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            LMAO. Yes, we’re entitled to that much!

    2. Not Today Avatar
      Not Today

      ONE WORD: UVALDE.

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    So, here’s an interesting question. “Is it okay for a charity thrift store to security tag clothing?”

    1. Not Today Avatar
      Not Today

      Not to me.

Leave a Reply

Read More