Symposium: Why Do Progressives Love Criminals?

Pages: 1 2

In this special edition of Frontpage Symposium, we have assembled a distinguished panel to discuss the question: Why do progressives love criminals? The discussion will be based on Michelle Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, which has just recently been released in paperback. Angela Davis’ Are Prisons Obsolete? will also serve as a specimen for analysis.

Our guests today are:

Christian Adams, an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. His bestselling book is Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department Visit his website at

Theodore Dalrymple, a retired doctor and psychiatrist, and the author of several books, among them the Life at the Bottom and Anything Goes.


Dr. Paul Hollander, the author or editor of fourteen books in political sociology and cultural-intellectual history. His books include Political Pilgrims, Anti-Americanism: Critiques at Home and Abroad, 1965-1990, and The End of Commitment.

FP: Christian Adams, Theodore Dalrymple and Dr. Paul Hollander, welcome to Frontpage Symposium and our discussion on the Left’s love affair with criminals.

In thinking about Michelle Alexander’s and Angela Davis’ books, let’s start the discussion in this way: Leftists regard the system itself as criminal and therefore regard criminals as “primitive rebels” against an unjust system.

Christian Adams, correct?

Adams: Correct Jamie, that’s the essence of Michelle Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow – that the criminal justice system is just another example of structural racism.

The Left resurrects Jim Crow so frequently to advance unpopular ideas, that it has lost all meaning. Alexander’s book takes this to a whole new, and absurd, level.  She argues, in short, that the criminal justice system is a racial segregation scheme, where blacks are now warehoused in prisons instead of on plantations.  She provides a dangerous intellectual framework for dismantling perhaps the last mighty keep of our culture – the notion that evil and crime carry consequences.  The Left has attacked every other aspect of western civilization, and now Alexander goes after the very concept of criminal culpability.

One unintended consequence of Alexander (and her fellow travelers) trotting out “Jim Crow” so regularly is that it diminishes the evil of Jim Crow. Reasonable people simply do not believe that people being in prison for committing crimes compares with the political disenfranchisement of the black minority and de jure segregation across the South.

Reasonable people would find Alexander’s thesis laughable, but her audience isn’t comprised of reasonable people. Reasonable Americans in middle America will never hear of The New Jim Crow.  Instead, her audience is comprised of the academic crackpots eager to teach her theories to the children of the reasonable people a decade from now.  Her audience also includes the grade-A race hustlers anxious for the next generation of poisonous grievance.

There was a time when the civil rights movement appealed to the moral core of reasonable Americans. Those who have inherited the legacy, like Alexander, now appeal to irrational fears and zealots.

One of the most dangerous and deliberate campaigns of the Left is to divorce actions from consequences.  Divorcing actions from consequences is the condition precedent to accepting the Great Society.  Divorcing actions from consequences is a condition precedent to accepting the premise of “The New Jim Crow.”  The criminal justice system is not, as Michelle Alexander suggests, the descendant of slavery and Jim Crow. Divorcing evil actions from the consequence of prison allows her to reach this conclusion.  Slavery was an evil system. So was Jim Crow.  But the prisons are largely populated by individuals who themselves engaged in evil acts.

Criminal actions have consequences, and Alexander necessarily must uncouple this relationship.  Uncoupling the relationship between criminal acts and incarceration is her aim.  Further decay of the culture and the rule of law would be the result.

There are so many problems with Alexander’s book, I don’t want to lay them all out here and leave nothing for the others in the forum.  But I will close with this thought.  Authors usually hope their books get widespread attention.  Already, many on the Left are attaching inflated descriptions of grandeur to The New Jim Crow.  They better be careful what they wish for.  This next installment in the moral collapse of the civil rights industry might be too much for Americans to take.  A bridge too far, if you will.  Americans cherish a criminal justice system which they think is both fair, and keeps their families safe.  Widespread popularization of the book’s thesis is certain to provoke a backlash, and further marginalize the already marginalized civil rights radicals on the race grievance left.   The book presents a laughable thesis to most Americans.  And it’s no fun to be laughed at.

Dalrymple: That leftists regard the criminal justice system as criminal and therefore regard criminals as “primitive rebels” against an unjust system is, I suppose, right, though few of them would openly admit it. They tend to see the proper function of the criminal justice system as being the promotion of what they call social justice, by which they mean equality – and not equality under the law, but equality of outcome between identifiable groups. (Equity and equality they almost always assume to be the same.) And they think that if there were justice, equality would result, naturally and inevitably; there is no equality, therefore there is no justice. I think you can read for quite a long time before you find an unequivocal statement that there could be no greater injustice than equality of outcome.

Their approach to the criminal justice system is not that its faults should be corrected, and individual instances of injustice righted (there does seem much to criticize); but rather that the whole of society must be transformed into something completely different from what it is now. Alexander’s book has at least the merit of acknowledging this, though she evaluates the supposed necessity differently from how I would evaluate it.

The fundamental thesis of Alexander’s book is not new. Let me quote from El Raheem, a character (a black convert to the Nation of Islam) in a Broadway play, Short Eyes, by a former convict, Miguel Pinero, that won the New York Drama Critics Circle Award for the best play, 1973-1974:

“You still expect the white man to give you a fair trial in his court? Don’t you know what justice really means? Justice… ‘just us’… white folks.”

Now as it happens, from a foreign viewpoint, there are deficiencies in the American criminal justice system, among them its vulnerability to local political pressure and the iniquitous system of plea bargaining, which can so easily turn justice into a game of poker.

But for all that it takes a great deal of credulity to believe that completely innocent men are routinely incarcerated in the US, and in large numbers.

I want to point out something that is so obvious that I should be ashamed to mention it were it not so repeatedly overlooked. Recidivist criminals are very productive, in the sense that they commit many crimes – in England, for example, one every 2-3 days. Most criminals victimize those close to them, geographically and socially. Thus the class of victims is many, many times the size of the class of perpetrators. In short, imprisonment, in so far as it prevents one crime per prisoner committed against neighbors ever two days, is a benefit received by the community and not an imposition upon it or an injustice against it. And the majority of the cost falls elsewhere.

When recently I pointed this out in an interview in Brazil, there was an outpouring of relief by poor but respectable Brazilians, that someone had acknowledged that to be poor was not ipso facto or ex officio to be criminal.

I will leave it to later to explain why intellectuals are so incapable of or unwilling to grasp this most obvious reasoning.

FP: Thank you Dr. Dalrymple.

Dr. Hollander, what do you make of this phenomenon?

Kindly begin on the theme of leftists regarding the system itself as criminal and therefore regarding criminals as “primitive rebels” against an unjust system.

Hollander: It does depend on who the “leftists” in question are.  Not all leftists consider criminals “primitive rebels” but more likely to consider them victims of the system. It also depends on what type of criminals we are talking about.  Surely white collar criminals, rapists or psychopathic serial murderers are not likely to be considered primitive rebels or even victims of the system.

I think there is a greater temptation to consider criminals “primitive rebels” when they come from  underprivileged strata of society — poor, uneducated,  ethnic minorities etc. and their crimes can be interpreted as an effort to put bread on the table, so to speak.

Overall, the question of this symposium and the proposition it entails needs modification or rephrasing. I would substitute “have a soft spot for” instead of “love.” More important, “progressive,” (i.e. leftist or PC attitudes) towards criminals are multidimensional, or selective depending on the type of crime involved and the social (including racial, ethnic, sexual) background of the criminal. These attitudes are highly patterned. Thus, as I just noted, not all criminals and types of crime are viewed with sympathy or empathy in these circles. “Progressives” have no sympathy for white collar criminals, rapists and those who commit “hate crimes.” Angela Davis would not consider their imprisonment “obsolete” or lament a “judgmental” a “judgmental” disposition toward them. A wealthy, middle aged, white male’s crimes would be perceived and judged very differently from those of a poor, young black male.

Sympathy or its absence toward different types of criminals and crimes is guided by certain assumptions about the nature of society we live in, by conceptions of human nature and the determinants of human behavior. Most important are the beliefs about the extent to which behavior (of different groups of people) is socially (or perhaps otherwise as well) determined. Allowing for, or denying, individual choice, or free will is selective. Those assigned to the victim groups, the underdogs (as defined by politically correct criteria) are supposed to have little choice, or free will – social forces hold them in their relentless grip. It is a different matter with white collar criminals or hate criminals whose reprehensible actions are apparently freely chosen and supposedly motivated by greed, racism, sexism, or homophobia.

Those in the victim populations are either a) altogether innocent, accused of crimes they did not commit (mainly on the basis of racial profiling); and/or b) were convicted because they could not afford to pay for good legal defense; or c) their crimes were determined by social forces and conditions over which they had no control: i.e. poverty, broken homes, childhood abuse, lack of education, racial, sexual or gender discrimination. In the politically correct perspective crime, esp. against property is often seen as a desperate effort to gratify basic needs unmet in legal or legitimate ways.

The exact connection between these social conditions or determinants and criminal acts are difficult to demonstrate. Many people who experience such disadvantages and deprivations do not become criminals.

More elaborate rationalizations of the allegedly unjust treatment of criminals is offered by these two authors focusing on Blacks and Hispanics. They suggest that such victimization has broader social-political functions, namely to divert public attention from major, serious social problems, defects and injustices and to intimidate those who might take action against the status quo. Most important, the unjustified incarceration of these minorities is designed to perpetuate a racial caste system, or create a new one, Michelle Alexander argues.

Criminals (excluding the politically incorrect ones noted above) are also viewed with sympathy by “progressives” because their “transgressive” behavior is treated as form of rebellion or social protest against a repressive and inherently unjust social system. Bank robbers don’t just take the money from where it is, they also challenge the unfair distribution of privilege, they make a statement.

Norman Mailer’s essay about the “The White Negro” is a notorious and extreme example of such sentiments as he glorifies individual violence as redeeming and authentic as opposed to the dehumanizing violence inherent in the system. As may be recalled some years ago, Mailer used his influence to have a convicted murderer released who soon after his release committed another murder in New York City.

It should also be noted that there is also an American tradition of romanticizing the outlaw who defies society and its conventions that found expression in popular movies such as “Bonnie and Clyde” and “Thelma and Louise” – the latter had a feminist twist. This tradition has little to do with political correctness.

Adams: When I read Mr. Dalrymple’s  recounting of his conversation about criminals in Brazil, I was reminded of the Trenton chapter of the New Black Panther Party, and the general glorification of criminal activity among some segments of the country, but lack of recognition that the effects of crime fall disproportionately on minority communities.  Yet too often the same minority communities have members willing to embrace violent thugs.

As I mention in my book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department, the New Black Panther Party has high profile members which actually glorify and advocate murder. The Trenton Chapter has a video called “bang out.”  From Injustice: in the music video, the panthers “conjured dozens of people, including women and children that advocate the murder of whites” and burying the “white devil” down by the river.  The New Black Panther Minister of War, Najee Muhammed, appears in another panther “training” video advocating the murder of DeKalb County police officers by lying in wait behind shrubbery and attacking with AK-47s.  Of course the infamous panther King Samir Shabazz was looped endlessly on Fox News calling for the murder of white babies.

These sorts of monsters are the most incendiary audience for Michelle Alexander’s book, because once you believe that the criminal justice system is truly a racist plot to warehouse innocent blacks, advocacy for violence isn’t far behind.

Consider how even Eric Holder’s Justice Department has a small role to play in this sordid mess.  The Obama DOJ and Department of Education are now going after school districts, claiming that school discipline policies are racially discriminatory.  From Injustice:

“In January 2011, [Assistant Attorney General] Perez announced that the DOJ would use a ‘disparate impact’ analysis on school discipline cases to determine whether discipline policies were racially discriminatory. Thus, if blacks were disciplined in higher percentages than their share of the population, the DOJ would bring a lawsuit to stop the discipline policy.”

Ponder the significance of this policy and how it reflects the world view of The New Jim Crow.  Structural racism must be to blame whenever black students comprise a greater percentage of suspended students compared with their share in the general population.  To the racialists like Alexander, Eric Holder and Tom Perez, individual responsibility has taken a back seat to racist structures that produce results that dispense discipline in ways they don’t like.  Given the patient march of the progressive racialist agenda, one can foresee this rancid theory gaining acceptance in the criminal justice system shortly.  One can almost imagine Alexander wishing some defendants could introduce evidence of structural racism in the criminal justice system to lessen their prison terms.

Mr. Hollander is spot on that Leftists have selective sympathy depending on the crime the criminal commits.  Rape, indeed, doesn’t usually gain the racialist pardon.  Murder, theft, assault and narcotics trafficking, however, can earn a great deal of sympathy from the left under the right circumstances.

Sympathy overflows when political crimes are involved.  Consider the murderer Marylin Buck, a Marxist terrorist who helped the Black Liberation Army acquire weapons which were used in murders.  Holder’s Justice Department released her from prison after the Bush DOJ refused to do so.  Some defend the release because she had a terminal disease, but there is no rule that says you can’t die in a prison infirmary after you participated in the deaths of multiple people.  When the criminal is fighting the “racist system,” sympathy is acute.

But such sympathy for someone like Buck is dangerous.  Sympathy for political murder is a species of sympathy right out of Stalin’s purges of the 1920s.  Crimes which benefit the favored ideology are excused, while imaginary crimes earn political opponents a bullet in the head.  This is precisely the madness our Constitutional system was designed to avoid.

Pages: 1 2

  • maturin20

    Progressives love criminals because everything is now illegal in the United States. You name it, there is a way to construe it as a crime. Accusations of crime are now the way to keep our oligarchical collectivist civilization in a state of stasis. The only way to move ahead now is to break the law.

    • Spider

      You are absolutely right – and do you realize how corrpt this is ? Any so called official can simply decide for himself who what when or where the law will be applied or ignored.. As always it will be some favored or disfavored person or group who gets either the wrath of the law or the big break depending on the officials political goals. Think Eric Holder

  • John

    The core problem is that we subsidize these nut case ideas in our universities. But for that the followers would be a tiny minority. They posture being a revolt against what is wrong with current society, but they are not because they do not offer a viable alternative. They damage any real effort at reform with a smoke screen of distraction.

    • Rifleman

      If you want an idea of what their society would look like, look at the fleabagger camps.

    • Randy

      Great point!

  • Questions

    This forum is productive, but could have benefited from more emphasis on blacks having a genetic predisposition toward violence and theft well beyond that of whites, something that is conditioned through learned behavior. That's why Black Panthers and other "community leaders" so often find a sympathetic audience among other blacks.

  • Alex Kovnat

    What frightens me is the way Norway about to treat a guy who brutally murdered over 50 people, as insane rather than an outright criminal. If that guy is turned loose, who knows what may happen next.

    • chris

      Apparently, Norway abolished the death penalty and the maximum sentence this killer can get is 21 yrs. Breviik is 33 yrs old and he'll be 54 when released. Glad I do not live in Norway. Take that you progressives, may you live next door to him.

  • Rifleman

    Many, if not most socialists believe they must collapse the "capitalist" society first, to create their socialist utopia. Anything that can help bring about that collapse is supported overtly or covertly by marxists, and criminals in a society that isn’t marxist are natural allies, at least until the marxists are firmly in charge.

  • Western Spirit

    Of course progressives love criminals they serve the same master.

    Lincoln said a house divided against itself cannot stand and in this he was quoting Christ who said Satan’s house divided against itself cannot stand.

    And indeed Satan’s house stands undivided still as criminals, the Islamists and the Left are standing together to bring down “the “great Satan”, .the “great Satan” that has done more good in the world than any other nation.

    Which gives us a clue to the real source of inspiration for the nation and the reason Satan’s undivided house real and true house is flailing against it..

    The Left’s culture, that once was the counter culture, has made great inroads into making this a degenerate nation under the pretext of doing “good”. Satan usually does work under the smokescreen of “ good” until he gets the upper hand and that’s when he shows his true colors. For example the Nazi’s.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Well leftists do love themselves inside or outside of jail………..criminality comes in many guises.
    Progressives recruit from prisons the same as Islamists, they are all family…………William

  • trumpetman

    Is there a typo in this from Dalrymple?

    Therefore it seems to me likely

    Should "likely" be "unlikely"? It would make far more sense in context.

  • Fred Dawes

    Most or all are crimimals or want to be! the USA Has about 8 months before the war starts inside the FORMER USA, IT Will be both a race war and a civil war the end game will be 7 nation states being made all will be on race lines and 4 billion people will die after the USA Disppaers and freedom and justice will also disappear from this earth and never come back. and that has always been the strategic of the one world monkeys. just get in line for the real butchery.

  • mrbean

    The worst example I can think of the left and criminals is Mumia Jamal. To think he is innocent requires believing that as he ran over to the policeman rousting his brother, someone else (whom no witness could see because apparently someone else was invisible) took Mumia's revolver from his cab, then walked over and shot the cop. The cop then turned around and shot not the invisible man firing the revolver at him, but by an inexplicable coincidence the man who owned the gun, apparently for no reason other than he was black. The invisible man then executed the cop, dropped the revolver, and strolled off whilst Mumia lay there bleeding. That's far beyond wild and the mysterious dude defense. That's even arguably beyond a mysterious alien landed from Mars defense. And for this rope haired dreadlocked chimpout Mumia still breathes.

  • Stephen Browne

    The motivation of intellectuals who lionize tyrants and criminals may be deceptively simple.

    Intellectuals tend to be a tad on the wimpy side. They admire strength, they want to be strong, but they have no idea what real masculine strength is.

    And too often, they think it is brutality.

  • Deepred

    Stalin started his revolutionary career as a bank robber. During his rule theft, murderer, rape,and most all criminal activity was considered a non-politcal offence (exept stealing from the state of course). Criminals became known as the "socially freindly". Stalin used them as internal camp police and sicked them on the political offenders (article 58) . They could steal, murder, whatever they pleased while the guards watched. or looked the other way. And when Stalin proclamed an amnesty it was only for these monsters so they could be let loose on the population which had no lawful means to defend itself.

    Progressives look to the wisest of the wise.

  • eidos

    I have no interest in attacking the main thrust of your panel discussion but I do want to put forth some fundamentally provocative thoughts about a premise being bandied about that, if your panel is not hopelessly engaged in partisan warfare, it will surely need to consider:

    The “Ricidivist Innocent”

    The evidence of recidivism is multiple convictions.

    The assumption is that those plea bargaining out (especially on misdemeanors) are innocent (because, lets face it, most cases do not go to trial)

    Wholly ignored is the fact that once arrested individuals are on police radar.

    The panel can pretend it is not possible that any great number of arrestees are actually innocent. My experience says otherwise. Once arrested, an innocent faces extremely high chance of re-arrest.

    Even felonies get pleaded out before much discovery is exchanged, and forget real investigation — no one can afford a good P.I.

    With misdemeanor and infractions I assert that my experience has taught me that false arrest is epidemic, and that is not an easy thing to study. It takes years in the trenches and the ability to acknowledge human nature. The ability to track arrests and access records of arrest has never been greater or more instantaneous for cops on the beat.

    Actual evidence of cases of arrest and re-arrest of the innocent is not uncommon at all, and it is against this backdrop of access to prior record.

    You can major in college or get your PhD in police misconduct, testilying and fabrications and you can read papers in legal journals about the victims, who now have this cynical, newly coined moniker to go by: The “recidivist innocent.”

    And that term was not invented by a progressive either. It was invented by a conservative who argued that such hapless victims should shoot for plea bargains!

    Race IS an issue because poverty is an issue – the greatest numbers of innocent arrested/ innocent convicted are poor, and a disproportionate number of the poor are minority.

    But anyone without clout, without influence can be arrested falsely once, and, if not vigilant in pulverizing the fall out from that arrest, (and I mean pulverize) will live the rest of his or her life at much much higher risk of re-arrest.

    As for the grousing about how we deal with guilty parties in this country — I have opinions about it but don’t wish to argue them here. I think it is much, much more important to start discussing the least discussed yet very serious issues, issues that should have bi-partison support.

    Let’s stop convincing ourselves that the police aren’t fabricating arrest reports every day in this country. The fabrications are boilerplate and ludicrous. I read them all the time. I have read thousands.

    And lets start to conceive that especially among misdemeanors and infractions it can be out of control. I believe it is. Everything I see every day ratifies it. I personally have witnessed it first hand several times and have been collecting informaiton about it from others also entrenched for years. Also cops tell me it is so and that it is conventional practice. I have absolutely no doubt about it.

    Become a little disabused of these notions so more innocent people don’t have to be subjected to abuse.

    • aspacia

      The problem is that too many excuse criminal, often violent perpetrators. The black on white mob attack, the recent release of the Muslim who attacked the atheist. The liberals do a huge disservice to our youth and society by excusing bad behavior. I have never been arrested, and for the first 25 years of my life, my last name was Candelaria, brown eyes, brown hair. The only problems I encountered stemmed from my lead foot.

      Ten to one, you are guilty as sin and I doubt police would tell you squat. We have 3 detectives (two are retired ) and one retired sheriff in our family, and frankly, this is not the case.

  • eidos

    PS. A typo and to clarify one sentence.

    Typo: “The assumption is that those plea bargaining out (especially on misdemeanors) are innocent”

    Meant to say the assumption is that they are guilty, or that most of them are guilty.

    Clarification: “I have read thousands.” I have read thousands of probable cause narratives by police. I don’t know how many of them contained material fabrications.

    Final thought: As someone dissatisfied with the left and the right, I have to say, this was not an unreasonable discussion but look at the context? The headline: “Why progressives love criminals”

    and the publication’s philosophical overtones: Let’s get tough on crime!

    Is there no nuanced venue to match what at times was a nuanced discussion?

    Much of the criticism of progressives is criticism I share, and I consider myself a progressive. I have voted Republican only in one local election in my whole life.

    What I need is a populist movement on the left that discards the once extremely relevant and useful collective group-centered progressive paradigm of the civil rights era with a return to individual rights.

    As it is now, I remain with progressives because they acknowledge that innocent people are being arrested and that policing has virtually no checks and balances, and that policing is rife with false arrests. There is impunity.

    I manage to get that much out of progressives, albeit, as a white constituent/member who would get no sympathy if victimized by a crime perpetrated by a minority member.

    • aspacia

      eidos, that is right, Holder and the progressives will throw you under the bus, and ignore any violence perpetrated against you by a minority.

      Do not be foolish.

  • eidos


    I get nothing but a glimmer of loyalty towards individual rights among libetarian-minded folks on the right and otherwise, am buried under the greediest, unregulated capitalist interests where I am expected to back sending troops overseas to protect mostly corporate minded interests where the corporate interests involved can barely be described as american corporate interests beyond a piece of paper in the Delaware recording office.

    It's not enough to cause my defection.

    And Mr. Adams, although I was against closing the investigation into the New Black Panther voter rights case at DOJ, what loss is it to us when the agency is NEVER bold on civil rights enforcement, and LEAST of all color of law prosecutions?? Come Come now, what is the big loss — one prosection by an agency that does almost none anyway no matter who is in the white house or who is the attorney general.

  • eidos


    By the way, it is established that the New Black Panther Party is a hate group and is listed as such by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which keeps a list of hate groups in the USA. It is listed right along with the KKK. The Black Panthers (The Old Black Panther Party) never approved of and do not approve of the New Black Panther Party and they are NOT related.

    As to incarceration: Will any of you care to assert a solution for the incredibly high rate of incarceration in this country and also address the draconian, ever evolving passive torture methods we are increasingly implementing, such as are used in the supermax prisons?

    The USA has had rather sadistic notions about rehabilitation since colonial times. Note that Charles Dickens was appalled at Ben Franklin's model prisons in Pennsylvania. I am sure we would not accuse Dickens of loving murderers.

    • aspacia

      A bullet for murderers with only 1 appeal. Have prisoners live in tents, plant and harvest their own food, and make their own clothes. I bet that would end the bs recidivism pecitivism rate. No more weight rooms, televisions, magazines and radio.

  • Martel64

    So-called "progressives" do NOT love ALL criminals;specifically,White criminals that are Pro-White.If they did,Matt Hale,Joseph Paul Franklin and others would be free, and holding jobs.

    Like all their mindsets, they side only with only those who BLAME WHITEY.

  • Celebritybreastimplants.Info

    These will help you lean down breast augmentation cost texas in the hospital using my port for the
    very last time as I had been in effect since January.

  • http://%URL% Bed Credit in Houston

    Very good blog post. I definitely love this website. Thanks!

  • http://%URL% electrical repair in madera

    Please let me know if you’re looking for a article author for your blog. You have some really good posts and I believe I would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I’d
    really like to write some articles for your blog in
    exchange for a link back to mine. Please send me an email if interested.

  • http://%URL% shrub trimming in Doylestown

    Your style is very unique compared to other people I
    have read stuff from. Thanks for posting when you’ve got the opportunity, Guess I will just book mark this web site.

  • golf

    What’s Going down i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I’ve discovered It positively helpful and it has helped me out loads.
    I am hoping to give a contribution & assist different users like its helped me.
    Great job.

  • Prince or Princess Book

    Hello to all, the contents present at this website are actually remarkable for
    people experience, well, keep up the nice
    work fellows.

  • raspberry ketone supplement images

    hello there and thank you for your information – I have certainly picked up
    something new from right here. I did however expertise several technical points using this web site, as I experienced to reload the web site a
    lot of times previous to I could get it to load correctly.
    I had been wondering if your web host is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but slow loading instances times will sometimes affect your placement in google and can damage your high quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I am adding this RSS to my email and could look out for much more of your respective interesting content. Ensure that you update this again very soon.