You're here to show me just how fucking stupid Goyim are
Any 'Goyim' retard is still 100% smarter than you.
You're nothing more than a stupid ignorant nigger with a keyboard and no education
You're nothing more than a stupid ignorant fake-jew with a keyboard and no education
Incorrect. They verify your name, address and SSN as well
You absolute retard of a human being, you do not need to enter your SSN to use Pacer. Also, not sure how they verify anything if they give you access instantly after putting in your credit card info, especially considering pacer offers services to the whole world.
Source on SSN.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Source: FIRST AMENDMENT
First Amendment has an increadible amount of limitations, moron. See:
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 20 L. Ed. 2d 672, 88 S. Ct. 1673 (1968 ), Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 47 L. Ed. 2d 505, 96 S. Ct. 1211 (1976), Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 17 L. Ed. 2d 149, 87 S. Ct. 242 (1966), Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), (somewhat) Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968 ), Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 17 L. Ed. 2d 149, 87 S. Ct. 242 (1966), Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 13 L. Ed. 2d 487, 85 S. Ct. 476 (1965), Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 92 L. Ed. 2d 549, 106 S. Ct. 3159 (1986), Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 98 L. Ed. 2d 592, 108 S. Ct. 562 (1988 ), Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 168 L. Ed. 2d 290, 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007), Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731, 89 S. Ct. 733 (1969), Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), and most importantly perhaps, you fucking moron of a human being, Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) which concluded:
On the other hand, the Court has rejected challenges under the Free Exercise Clause to governmental regulation of certain overt acts prompted by religious beliefs or principles, for "even when the action is in accord with one's religious convictions, [it] is not totally free from legislative restrictions." The conduct or actions so regulated have invariably posed some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order."
Some citations to debunk your bullshit:
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 20 L. Ed. 2d 672, 88 S. Ct. 1673 (1968 )
"Whatever imprecision inheres in these terms, we think it clear that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest."
Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 47 L. Ed. 2d 505, 96 S. Ct. 1211 (1976).
First Amendment rights are not absolute under all circumstances. They may be circumscribed when necessary to further a sufficiently strong public interest. The guarantees of the First Amendment have never meant "that people who want to propagandize protests or views have a constitutional right to do so whenever and however and wherever they please.
Overall? You are a fucking ignorant moron.
Ooooh, let's see that one again in big letters because it's just so, so, beautiful
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Source: FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Once again, you are a moron, that does not even realise her own rights. You are the worst kind of moron.
for that reason alone, be considered in violation of this section.
Can you even read? I provided more reasons than just spiritial healing.
reason alone be considered to be an abused or neglected child;
Learn to read
"forced ingestion" to include breastmilk after the mother drank wine
Because most mothers aren't retarded enough to poison ther kids. Regardless, there probably is. I haven't checked, and I am not sure If I will even bother. It's the plain language of the statue, which is very important in courts(You should probably know that)
orgot to quote the rest of the law too.
FYI - It's legal to serve (but not sell) minors alcohol on private property in places of worship and in gatherings in one's home
I think there's a fair difference between a minor and a toddler
No. It's called being able to fucking read.
You don't have any legal basis to be reporting anything. You can't even read basic codes correctly
Projection much? I'd say I have plenty of Good Faith basis to report, not that I will.
And you don't even know what county my permanent residence is in
VA, under your own admission.
That's not what LLL nor the Australian Breastfeeding Assoc. site says
One, I did already prove that it doesn't say what you think it says, two, I dont care what an organization that has no requirments for its members to have scientific/medical knowledge(Unlike, say, every governmental health organization) says, unless it can link me decent studies to support its claims.
One of France's big wine producer's CEO drank 2 glasses a day and lived to be 92.
Good for the CEO. If you were able to read, you'd know that I was talking about toddles specifically.
And people who pay them off for fake results
At one time science said many things they changed their mind on
Again, for both of your comments,
It all goes back to a money trail.
Which you still have failed to prove, or show.
