Powered by TypePad

« Condi Rice Warned By George Tenet | Main | NY Times Delivers Front Page Murtha-Basher »

October 01, 2006



One more thing:
TARS is Teen Age Republican.
So the kid starts TARS at his school, which is in Rodney Alexander's district. He was excited about the number of kids he got to sign up.
His family wanted to keep this quiet, and CREW let out a lot of clues about him.
Poor thing.




Wouldn't it be funny if Foley comes out Monday with a McGreevy like presser

More like a Patrick Kennedy like presser. He's admitted himself into rehab.


One more question: if an adolescent page, a young girl, had received suggestive E-mails and IMs from Senator Hillary Clinton, what would be your reaction?

Well if the right starts imitating the left, that very occurrance will come to your attention on about 23.5 months. Something for you to look forward to.


I haven't got all the dates straight. Nor do I know when the last IM's were. But, did CREW or someone get the emails then set up a sting with the IM's? I've not seen all the documents, but it sounds about right.


I'm not in search of ironies and ex post facto does come into play with Foley, but did Congress make the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" apply to Congress ?


I think we might have figured out why emails and IMs are not usable in court -- I want to see originals with all the header information attached. To easy to forge all this crap.

BTW: Not saying Foley shouldn't have resigned, he should have, but am saying the accusations about who knew what when needs proof. And a retyped email or IM isn't it.

I also want to know who wrote the IMs, doesn't sound like it was a boy, at least one who wasn't being coached.

Can someone tell me how many IMs you have saved, I know how many I have saved, exactly none in 20 years of Internet use.


I think we might have figured out why emails and IMs are not usable in court

Except that they are now.

We are involved tangentially in a case where a guy produced a bunch of emails that we believe were forged. Opposing counsel has hired a forensic scientist to prove it.

And then there is this: http://patterico.com/2006/09/28/5211/you-have-the-right-not-to-blog-and-to-the-presence-of-an-attorney-during-any-blogging/#comments


Jane, yes they are allowed, I misspoke, but not on face value and not without thorough forensics analysis, without which they are nothing but random typing on a piece of paper. Much the same as what we have here. Has anyone seen the actual emails and IMs, especially copies with complete headers and routing information? The beauty of this is it's going to take someone a long time to figure out if the emails and IMs are genuine, and if they were actually written by who it is said wrote them, and then who knew what when.

By then, conviently the election will be over, and we will all just forget about it. Neat dirty tricks play isn't it.

Can anyone prove who actually wrote the emails or IMs in question or do they just assume they were written by whomever they want to assume.

That's why so many Internet scams are run by email, easy to forge and spoof, and trip up the unwary.

I have no doubt Foley was up to no good with the pages, and should have resigned. But the rest smells really bad.



Actually the Judge in the case I'm talking about just let them in. Because the other side contested them, they have to go to the expense of the forensic analysis. Might just be a bad Judge and all that.

Some dems are even admitting it's a dirty trick. I guess we should find that refreshing. It's payback of course, because that is the only thing the left knows or cares about.


Well....I find it funny that anonymous changed his story (her story?) over the course of the evening. Went from illegal activity of a pedophile to look at his past and get a sense for what he might have done. Couldn't have been funnier....the same old process: Make a claim, get questioned on proof of that claim, change the claim, repeat.

BTW - I laughed when you got absolutely no response from anyone. I felt I had to just so you would not feel snubbed. LOL - that's laughing at you, not with you. Also - stop tossing the term pedophile around like it fits here. Try looking up the definition (from Wiki):

Pedophilia or paedophilia (see spelling differences) is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. Persons with this attraction are called pedophiles.

In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition, the term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent[1], as well as those who have sexually abused a child.

And while I find it disturbing that Foley might have been chasing teens, by definition (either medical or colloquial), he is not a pedophile. That term is being used to inflame people who don't have the wits to understand the difference - by people who are lying about Foley and his preferences (lying by the use of the term - like you!)

But let's make sure that all Congresscritters are not chasing teens - not just Foley. As was proposed earlier, I think that we give a polygraph to all Congresscritters. I mean - if they have even looked at a 17 yo and thought, "good looking" that must be harassment or must have broken some law, right? Maybe we should extend that to ALL ADULTS. My Gawwwwd - it just might be that there is an epidemic of adults that think teens are attractive. We could force every one of them to quite their jobs - even if they have done nothing illegal.....LOL. Such logic from the Dem Brain Trust.

clarice feldman

Mickey Kaus thinks I was too easy on Hastert but he does blame the NYT for conflating the IMs with the emails. http://www.slate.com/id/2150386/

Well, today they say Foley was" warm and caring".

Sorry, but as this develops I think this hyping of the story only reminds voters of the far more damaging scandals on the other side of the aisle, and must be scarey to those who see homophobia in the suggestion that innocuous emails from a reputedly homosexual Congressman should have forced the leadership into a full bore inquisition.


--- As was proposed earlier, I think that we give a polygraph to all Congresscritters. I mean - if they have even looked at a 17 yo and thought, "good looking" that must be harassment or must have broken some law, right? ---

Well, there was a link above about a drunken groping Patrick Kennedy, so I am sure the Dems didn't step on their own you know what here, I am sure PK doesn't have some skeletons in his closet.../sarcasm off

Sara (Squiggler)

It is 100% hilarious to watch the righties here try to protect a pedohile (especially one that has already resigned). Blog on! Blog on!


There is one thing I despise and that is someone who lies and casts aspersions that are ignorant and designed to cause reactions. Well you wanted it with your baiting, you got it, you ignorant lying piece of crap.

There is no one here except Charlie who is supporting Foley. Every single person has said they think he did the right thing by leaving Congress and many have stated they think he is a scumbag.

If you had half a brain, you would know that no one is "protecting a pedophile." That is the most ignorant charge and if you had even an ounce of thought in you, you might realize that some here have been victims themselves and a charge like that is extremely hurtful and serious. But then looney leftists have no concience that I've ever seen, so I suppose that is your excuse too.

There are two issues here. Count them, one Foley, two how this became public and who violated the wishes of the 16 year old and his parents and took this public. The secondary issue to number two is the motive and, of course, the motive is simple, it is typical leftist politics of personal destruction.

Since one is settled with Foley's resignation and the opening of a Justice investigation, we are concentrating on number two. Now I realize that number two is not what you want to concentrate on ... you guys like to talk your shit but you sure don't want to have to explain it. The minute CREW was mentioned, the red flags started waving and everyone now knows that this is right out the dem's bag of dirty tricks. So take your hilarity off to your buddies because here it just makes you look like the ignoranamous you obviously are.

Gabriel Sutherland

Does anyone know if ABC News showed the emails, printouts or screenshots, in their broadcast?

CREW and SSP are the only places I can find alleged copies of the printouts or screenshots of them.

Gabriel Sutherland

Another thing about the CREW PDF files. They are dated and numbered. They look like copies that were faxed to them.

The fax reads "No. 759". The date is May 29, 2006. One might try to get some Congressional offices to send them a fax to see if the numbers line up.

clarice feldman

Where to begin, Gabriel? I'd try Conyers office.


Texas Taqiya,
"How I wish we were winning this damned war."

No you don't,you want the pacification of Iraq to fail so badly it is oozing from you.

"How I wish we were instead arguing about simple things like tax policy instead of whether or not waterboarding is torture."

So STFU and argue about tax policy instead of all this nitpicking and character assassination.


There is one thing I despise and that is someone who lies and casts aspersions that are ignorant and designed to cause reactions.

Unless, of course, the target is a Democrat.


Unless, of course, the target is a Democrat.

In which case it's all lies and aspersions until the DNA on blue dress comes back.

Gabriel Sutherland

CREW has posted a PDF scan of the email they sent to the FBI urging them to investigate Foley on July 21, 2006. Melanie Sloan sent the email at 5PM EST on a Friday. Curious timing.

But we now know that CREW had the emails and/or IMs by or before July 21, 2006.


A blue dress ... interesting ... You don't suppose that Foley, Shimkus, et al. liked to dress up their favorite pages in little blue dresses, do you?

Or do you?


Hmmm....as usual superb sleuthing, aided by factual evidence, and further aided by Reading and Vocabulary comprehension, and the minions of mindless morons retreat to the mothership. Abject failure to grasp the obvious has fried the Collective Brain Cell......



Why do you bother? You've been had here. You were directly challenged and you could not back up any of your claims. You keep trying to shift the subject from things you said, and were challenged on, to something new. That is how the Rules of Disinformation work.

You obviously have very little intelligence. What you have is hatred for everything Republican and anything that can be turned into a scandal you will. That is called being "prejudicial".

Now before you rant and rave some more, yes, I am biased towards Republicans. But then again, I don't run around shrilly screaming "SCANDAL" every time one of them gets into trouble. I could, but I don't. You do. But let me ask you this - how often have you voted for a Republican in say, the last 4 years? Or are you so simple-minded that you vote strictly party-line? I can name several Democrats I voted for.

clarice feldman

Great piece by One Cosmos (shrink)

Here's an excerpt:
"It is interesting to read the hysteria coming out of the left regarding the situation with Congressman Foley, who I wholeheartedly agree is a pervert. Furthermore, it is fascinating to hear the left using this normally shunned word so freely and openly. Normally, the left specializes in defining deviancy down, so they are definitely at cross purposes with themselves in this matter.

In fact, someone left a shrewd comment about Foley on La Shawn Barber’s blog, that “Twenty years from now, he will be able to marry a 16 year old boy.” Seriously, who could argue with this comment? Is this not the trend that the left has been working toward over the last 40 years? Twenty years from now this might be an epic story of forbidden love overcoming the hidebound, benighted, and unprogressive attitudes of sexual oppressors.

But there is a much deeper reason the left is at cross purposes with itself. They keep stridently referring to Foley as a “pervert.” While I certainly agree that he is a pervert, I am quite sure I don’t understand why they do. Is it because he is attracted to young men? If that is the case, why is he a pervert, when all normal heterosexual men are just as attracted to young female flesh? Can I get a witness? I'm hardly excusing it. "Is" is not synonymous with "ought." In fact, this is why society must have "oughts" in place that acknowledge the problematic nature of male sexuality.

On dailykos they keep calling Foley’s actions “pedophilia,” but this is amazingly deceptive. Pedophilia specifically revolves around fantasies, urges, or sexual behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child, a very different thing. Therefore, we can take the charge of pedophilia right off the table.

An interesting aside. A number of years ago, leftist sexual activists put pressure on the American Psychiatric Association to actually change the DSM definition of pedophilia (imagine the furor if conservative activists had done the same thing, redefining a mental disorder to make it conform with their agenda--say "feminist sexual disorder"). In the DSM III, pedophilia was simply defined as any sexual urges or fantasies toward a prepubescent child. But in the DSM IV, the criteria were changed, so that the diagnosis could only be made if the fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress to the perpetrator! In other words, according to DSM-IV criteria, even if the boy had been underage, so long as Foley was not distressed or conflicted about his behavior, then he is entirely normal. He gets a pass. He is no different than a heterosexual man--say, John Derek--who was attracted to 16 year-old Bo Derek. Now, in my opinion, John Derek may have been an immature man or a silly man or reckless man or a lucky man, but he was not a perverted man. Hiyo!

It is well understood that almost all true pedophiles are men. This is hardly a knock on men. Saying this does not make me an androphobe. Furthermore, the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, which is perfectly understandable, since they constitute over 98% of the male population. But let’s be honest. Let’s just look at the statistics, and see if we can draw any inferences from them aside from the truism that male sexuality is problematic for civilization--or that, for that very reason, both cultural mores and laws must be designed to guide male sexuality toward healthy, or at least pro-social, outlets. Otherwise, men will be inclined to “do what they do” in a state of nature, and be reduced to what George Gilder called the “naked nomad.”

In proportion to their numbers, homosexual males seem to be significantly more likely to engage in sex with minors. Let’s take the homosexual priest problem that afflicted the Catholic church. It is again deceptive to call this a “pedophile priest” problem, since the majority of victims were post-pubescent teenage boys. This is apparently consistent with studies indicating that “While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual... approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual. Further, since male-on-male pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles, it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males.”




It comes as no surprise to me that you and your fellow True Believers will defend anything, as long as the perpetrator is a Republican.

Torture, murder, sexual abuse of children ... there is nothing you will not tolerate in the service of your Dear Leader.

Now, to your political question. And it is such a good opportunity to illustrate why people (especially people like you) should not make broad, general assumptions:

I am apolitical.

(See if you can work that one out.)


Miss Feldman:

A Neo-Con commenter (who calls herself "kim") has been posting everywhere, accusing Democrats in the Foley scandal of "conflating homosexuality with pedophilia."

Would you say that is what we're getting in the "One Cosmos" piece?


He is no different than a heterosexual man--say, John Derek--who was attracted to 16 year-old Bo Derek. Now, in my opinion, John Derek may have been an immature man or a silly man or reckless man or a lucky man, but he was not a perverted man. Hiyo!

This passage from the Cosmos piece illustrates Kim's likely point wrt hetrosexuality. Calling John Derek a pedophile would be clinicly inaccurate. Reasonable people might disagree whether that relationship should be legal, very few consider it perverted.

clarice feldman

As the Shrink who runs one Cosmos points out, Foley's behavior under liberal standards is not perverted but normal though most of us would think otherwise, and under any legal definition does not constitute pedophilia .

It is the claim that Hastert should have begun a full bore inquisition on the basis of (1) the belief that Foley was homosexual and (2) that he engaged in an innocent email exchange with a former (of age) page that leads ME to believe that there is an effort by the Dems to play on homophobia when it suits their purposes.

AS for what Kim believes--ask her.


"Foley's behavior ... is not perverted but normal ... "

Just when I think I've heard it all, something like that comes along.

[And there is really not much point in asking "Kim" anything;
you can try it yourself, but I wouldn't recommend it.]


Foley's behavior under liberal standards is not perverted but normal

Removing the control phrase "under liberal standards" to mock it is dishonest. Go ahead and back up the notion that liberals consider it "perverted" rather than abuse of authority or some such then.

Sara (Squiggler)

But Boris, anonymous is apolitical, doncha' know? Gag!

clarice feldman

Anonymous reveals herself:It's Mo Dowd mistress of the lying ellipse. LOL



Still avoiding all questions I see. Haven't answered a single one. I don't believe for a minute that you are apolitical, and no one who has read you vitriol towards Republicans will believe it for a minute.

Why don't you just admit you are a troll who can't back up A SINGLE CLAIM YOU HAVE MADE. not one. Just a troll....pathetic.


[IGNOREON TARGET="anonymous"]


But "liberals" do not consider Mr. Foley's behavior "normal."
And that's why you're all dancing as fast as you can.


It is your elected representatives who have questions to answer. And I'm sure you will be asking them.


Just a comment about emails. None of the ones I've seen so far have any header information. All emails are sent with header information. Even though your email client might hide it, anyone intending to authenticate an email, or claim to have an authentic one, would presumably want to include the header information as a form of proof. For example, here's the header information from an email:

Return-Path: <aolsupport@aol.com>
Received: from cmapi1op.office.aol.com (cmapi1op.office.aol.com []) by air-yf04.mail.aol.com (v107.13) with ESMTP id MAILINYF44-aa55438ce11131; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:15:30 -0500
Content-Type: text/html;charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: xxxxxxxxx@aol.com
Reply-To: aolsupport@aol.com
From: aolsupport@aol.com
Subject: AOL Payment Method Update
Confirmation Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <24071486.1133306129923.JavaMail.smapi1@cmapi1op.office.aol.com>
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:15:30 EST

In a real email, the content of the message would follow this stuff, but anyone could type something to appear to be an email's content. The header information isn't as easy to forge, and would allow someone to trace an actual email to Foley, one of his accusers, etc.


But "liberals" do not consider Mr. Foley's behavior "normal."
And that's why you're all dancing as fast as you can.


Not only was he re elected after it was discovered that he plied a male page with liquor and molested him, but he retired with his full pension.


But "liberals" do not consider Mr. Foley's behavior "normal."

To the extent that liberals don't believe in the concept of normal, that's a valid if irrelevant point.

The question put to you was different ...

Go ahead and back up the notion that liberals consider it "perverted" rather than abuse of authority or hypocrisy or some such.


Oh sorry...that's Gerry Studds and how Democrats deal with deviant "abnormal" behavior!

clarice feldman

From a poster on Lucianne re the timing and the Dem complicity:

The democrats have been planning this for at least six months, probably longer. The evidence is to plentiful to ignore.
Fact- Foley beat the democrat candidate every election since 1994.
1998- No Opponent
2000- 60%
The South Florida democrats were so sure of defeat in 06 that they allowed a leftwing moonbat named David Lutrin to challenge Foley. That changed six months ago. They removed Lutrin and substituted Tim Mahoney. Lavishing him with more money and resources than they had ever spent on that particular district. Why, polls pointed to a sure defeat for any dem challenger. Foleys a sicko, and the dems are traitorous conspirators.


That is a very telling argument.


Makes you wonder what they have planned next.


So you see a problem because bloggers didn't run with a story that had no evidence, and then ABC ran with it (when they had solid evidence -- the e-mails)?

You're a really, really weird person. That's all I've got to say.

clarice feldman

Do we know of any occurrence in May of this year? Do any of the faxes or posts on gay-outing blog sites conform to that period?

clarice feldman

October 02, 2006
Foley: The Democratic Playbook
It may not be as smooth as the Republicans' Stirling engine, but the Democrats' party committees are hitting on all cylinders today. They want candidates in each and every House and Senate race to push the Foley scandal to its hilt.

(Sample DSCC release: “Foley Sex Scandal Hits DeWine.” Sample WI Dem party release: “Foley Scandal: What Did Green Know and When Did He Know it?”)

Here's Dems' playbook:

1. Pay no heed to the distinction between the e-mails and IMs. There's no evidence (yet) that any Republican leaders knew about Foley's cybersex IMs. There's plenty of evidence that they knew how uncomfortable the "overly friendly" e-mails made at least one page. So the Dems will press the GOP on what they knew about the former and will constantly, in their press releases, refer to the "GOP's knowledge of the sexually explicit e-mails."

2. Enlarge the wedge between House leaders. The tension this weekend between Speaker Dennis Hastert and NRCC chair Tom Reynolds was thick. Dems want it to suffocate the party and throw the Republicans even further off their game.

3. Be aggressive about how Dems will -- and are -- protecting children. Dems want to keep the issue poisonous in a way that's clear and direct to middle America. (In other words: this ain't earmarks.)

4. Choose unimpeachable spokespeople to be their public face. The DCCC has enlisted Patty Wetterling, its candidate for MN 06, to call for "a thorough investigation" of the House leadership over Foley. Wetterling's son, Jacob, was kidnapped in 1989.

5. Deride the Republicans for incompetence. How can you possibly trust them with national security if you can't trust them with your own children?

6. Bring up Terri Schiavo's case and compare the heated GOP attention back then to their allegedly lax attention to the welfare of their pages.

7. Compare what the GOP leadership says about Foley with what Republicans said about Jack Abramoff.

8. Use the Foley cash. Already, the DSCC wonders why George Allen didn't immediately return the Foley. The quotable Phil Singer: “It is more than a little disturbing that Allen apparently sees nothing wrong with holding on to contributions he got from an adult who has been caught sending sexually explicit email to children." Allen and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) will return the cash. But the NRCC already spent the $550K and won't.

Here's what the Democrats hope to accomplish:

1. Republicans will flinch before they try and use "values" as a cudgel. Can this NRCC ad against Brad Ellsworth be run in this environment?

2. Democrats now have a new way to respond to the Republicans when they go negative: "They're just trying to distract you from the scandal."

3. GOP candidates will be thrown on the defensive, generally.

4. Link House candidates -- and not just Reynolds -- to the sense that that the GOP was hesitant to investigate or even poke around into Foley's life because they didn't want to jeopardize their majority. That is, they craved power to the point where they ignored or suppressed warnings.

Posted at 04:00 PM



Rick Moran October 01, 2006 at 01:07 PM-

Brass plate IP site is created ala "StopSexPredators"

Much of what flows from "StopSexPredators" is true, but one significant point will prove to be dubious just in time, just before the election-

Rove play MO is to hit opponent exactly where you are guilty, and so you lose a few to the TRUTH at first but you achieve the false sense of victory needed later on, in order to validate electioneering schemes-

And that is as Tin Foil Hat as I would like to go, and if true, would rock DC like nothing before it, and the chances of any of this being true, or the shitte above is about as likely as carbon fire melts steel CT-

Cheers Monkeys



The CREW fax is dated May 29, 2006.

If you are looking for a May event.

clarice feldman

I go back to the email from a stranger I received last night, which in relevant part reads:
"Remember that Alexander was a Democrat until 2004, when he switched to the GOP after qualifying had begun but before qualifying ended. His entire staff, Democratic at that time, quit. Alexander hired a new GOP staff. But I could easily imagine some staffer, faced with a complaint from a page like this during the midst of the chaos for Louisiana which was Katrina, asked one of Alexander's former (Dem) staffers for some casual advice. I can't find a date right now for when the e-mails were discussed with Hastert's office, but the e-mails themselves were written between August 29 and Sept. 5, after the hurricane hit and before the Congressional session referenced in one of the e-mails. I worked with several Congressional offices on the ground here in Baton Rouge in early September, and I can tell you that they were far too busy to bother with anything like that right away. There's no way they would have done anything with those e-mails until October at the very earliest. The St. Petersburg Times were fed the story in November, which I would calculate is no more than (and perhaps much less than) a month after the consultations with Hastert's office about them.

Anyway, that’s my theory, that Alexander or an Alexander staffer sent the e-mails to a former Alexander staffer for advice on how to handle a difficult problem. Or perhaps Alexander himself asked a Democratic colleague about it, someone whom he had been close to when he was himself a Democrat, without fully realizing just how much party loyalty trumps everything in D.C."

clarice feldman

Bingo! Maybee. Thank you.I knew that date was floating around.

Now, if 6 months ago the Dems suddenly pulled a weak candidate from the race, replaced him with someone more moderate and then started pouring money into a district it appeared they had no chance of winning, was it just a coincidence? LOL


Did CREW take the emails down, or just move them. Yesterday's link doesn't work

OK, so following what the stranger said:

On August 31, someone at @mail.house.gov emails "forward me the emails".

The response on Aug 30 (late at night, so maybe a timezone thing) the boys says, yeah I have the emails. He then forwards some of the emails he received from Foley which are dated around July 29,2005. These appear to have been printed out or received by someone 9/13/2005.

There is a first page, with more explanation (seemingly from the boy), dated (print date)? as 10/17/2005.

It is impossible to tell at this point who is sending and receiving the boy's email explanation on those dates. It could be his original email to Alexander's aide, or it could be Alexander's aid sending it on. Both the to: and from: fields are blacked out.

It all appears to have been faxed to CREW May 29, 2006. It is missing a cover page.


It is missing a cover page.

Of course, because it os from the DCCC.

clarice feldman

I thought we deterimined it was faxed from a Congressional Office.

clarice feldman

Anyway if it was from there we'll soon find out which one. Whoever blacked out stuff left the fax machine no, on it.


Driving home this evening, I was listening to the #1 talk-radio program in the country (for "drive-time," as they call it) and the two conservative hosts were having a fine time reading Mr. Foley's IMs. One host took the part of Representative Foley, the other took the part of Mr. Foley's teenage victim; the background music was Marvin Gaye, singing "Sexual Healing" ... now and then, the engineer would add recordings of Larry Flynt laughing ...

Now, what were you saying about E-mail headers ?



I have them (crews), if you want them.

Jeremy Nimmo

Great roundup. Nonetheless, the guy needs to be taken down hard.


... the guy needs to be taken down hard.

Posted by: Jeremy Nimmo | October 02, 2006 at 10:54 PM


Prompted by her comments, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a Freedom of Information request for the White House information on contacts with Spaeth and a number of others associated with the SBVT (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth).

Sarah Green

All the comments on every post on Stop Sex Predators have been REMOVED! Too revealing, I guess!


Pass the popcorn! Foley is apparently turning to Scientology to cure him of teh gay.


Just heard a Radio Headline. Email and text messages are two different things. It is amazing that even FOX News can't get it right. In my opinion most of the news media are deliberately confusing the two. At this point, I think the Dems are winning, but it it rapidly unwinding and I think what they hoped would be a flash in the pan will backfire like they will not believe or comprehend. Kudos to the blogosphere for rooting out the truth. I heard this only this morning, an ABC mouthpieces already saying we don't know where the text messages came from. Ha ha ha!


kong company registration


注册香港公司,创立国际品牌,开拓全球贸易,获取更大商机,[url=http://www.mgzc.com/ ]美国签证公司注册[/url],[url=http://www.hksac.net/ ]香港进出口贸易公司注册[/url],专业[url=http://www.hksaa.cn/ ]注册美国香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.rflaws.com/ ]香港瑞丰律师事务所[/url],[url=http://www.hksac.com.hk/ ]会计师协会[/url],有关[url=http://www.hksaa.com.cn/ ]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.hkce.org/ ]香港公司注册商标[/url]登记,[url=http://www.hkce.net/ ]香港公司注册商标[/url]程序,[url=http://www.hkccr.org/ ]国际贸易进出口香港公司注册[/url]说明,[url=http://www.bviltd.org/ ]Hong Kong Company[/url]条件,[url=http://www.bvicr.org/ ]注册香港公司商标[/url]费用,免费[url=http://www.bvicr.com/ ]香港公司登记[/url]咨询,提供[url=http://www.bvicr.net/ ]注册香港公司[/url]服务,[url=http://www.rflaws.org/ ]香港瑞丰律师事务所[/url],[url=http://www.ltdcr.net/ ]香港公司企业登记[/url]权威机构,[url=http://www.ltdcr.org/ ]香港公司注册[/url],我们在[url=http://www.ltdcr.cn/ ]注册海外香港公司[/url]方面丰富经验,[url=http://www.cegcr.com/ ]注册美国香港公司[/url]和协会商会,[url=http://www.cegcr.net/ ]香港公司商标注册[/url]和社团组织,负责[url=http://www.cegcr.org/ ]注册香港公司商标[/url]及银行开户,完善[url=http://www.hkrr.org/ ]注册香港公司,商业财务,会计师,商标注册,贸易投资,法律顾问[/url]制度,[url=http://www.hktmr.com/ ]商标注册[/url],[url=http://www.hkltdcr.com/ ]注册香港美国公司商标[/url],瑞丰会计师事务所[url=http://www.hkltdcr.net/ ]注册美国香港公司[/url]可靠性,[url=http://www.gov.hkrr.org/ ]香港[/url],[url=http://www.bj.hkrr.org/ ]北京[/url],[url=http://www.dl.hkrr.org/ ]大连[/url],[url=http://www.gov.rf.hk/ ]香港信息港[/url],

由会计师[url=http://www.hkltdcr.org/ ]香港公司商标[/url]注册,负责[url=http://www.hkltdcr.cn/ ]注册香港公司企业[/url]全程安排,落实[url=http://www.oveltd.net/ ]香港贸易公司注册[/url]政策,全套[url=http://www.oveltd.com/ ]香港进出口贸易公司注册[/url]说明,[url=http://www.oveltd.org/ ]办理注册香港公司[/url]后续工作,[url=http://www.oveltd.cn/ ]注册香港公司[/url]基金会,[url=http://www.tradeinvests.net/ ]商务资讯[/url],[url=http://www.tradeinvests.com/ ]国际贸易进出口[/url],[url=http://www.ovecr.net/ ]香港商业论坛[/url]慈善基金会,[url=http://www.ovecr.com/ ]香港进出口贸易公司[/url]教育基金会,[url=http://www.ovecr.org/ ]香港注册公司和国际品牌策划[/url],针对[url=http://www.ovecr.cn/ ]香港公司注册和服装服饰[/url],[url=http://www.hklaws.org/ ]香港律师事务所法律顾问[/url],[url=http://www.richfu.org/ ]美国香港公司商标注册[/url][url=http://www.richfu.net/ ]注册香港公司商标[/url],登记[url=http://www.richfu.cn/ ]工商注册香港公司[/url],提供[url=http://www.intlcr.com/ ]香港会计师公司注册[/url],[url=http://www.intlcr.org/ ]香港公司企业注册[/url],[url=http://www.intlcr.net/ ]香港公司注册银行开户[/url],[url=http://www.intlcr.cn/ ]注册香港公司美国企业[/url],[url=http://www.rfhz.com/ ]注册公司[/url],[url=http://www.rfhz.org/ ]香港公司登记注册[/url],[url=http://www.rfhz.net/ ]注册公司[/url],[url=http://www.rfhz.cn/ ]香港公司[/url]等更多资料....

瑞丰专业[url=http://www.hongkongcompanyregistration.com/ ]办理注册香港公司[/url],提供[url=http://www.hongkongcompanyregistration.com.cn/ ]香港公司企业注册[/url]咨询,[url=http://www.rfcpa.org/ ]香港会计师事务所[/url],[url=http://www.hongkongcompanyregistration.cn/ ]注册香港公司商标[/url]说明,[url=http://www.hongkongcompanyregistration.net/ ]注册香港公司商标[/url]程序,[url=http://www.tradeinvests.cn/ ]进出口贸易公司注册[/url],[url=http://www.offshorecompanyregistration.com.cn/ ]注册海外公司离岸公司注册[/url],[url=http://www.hongkongcompanyregistration.org/ ]公司商标注册[/url]条件,[url=http://www.hongkongregistry.com.cn/ ]办理香港公司注册[/url]登记,[url=http://www.offshorecompanyregistration.org/ ]注册海外离岸公司[/url],我们具有[url=http://www.hongkongregistry.com/ ]办理香港公司注册[/url]的丰富经验,致力于[url=http://www.hongkongregistry.cn/ ]注册香港公司[/url]规范制度,[url=http://www.offshorecompanyregistration.cn/ ]办理海外离岸公司注册[/url],努力提高[url=http://www.hongkongregistry.org/ ]办理香港注册公司[/url]业务水平,制订[url=http://www.hongkongregistry.net/ ]办理香港工商登记[/url]优惠政策,发展[url=http://www.rfzc.net/ ]办理香港注册公司[/url]优势,[url=http://www.tradeinvests.org/ ]国际贸易投资进出口公司[/url],认真负责[url=http://www.rfzc.com/ ]注册香港公司[/url]资料完整,确保[url=http://www.rfzc.org/ ]办理香港公司注册[/url]客户利益,保持[url=http://www.rfzc.cn/ ]注册香港公司[/url]稳定,建立[url=http://www.rfzc.com.cn/ ]注册香港公司[/url]制度化,[url=http://www.offshorecompanyregistration.net/ ]海外公司办理离岸公司注册[/url],[url=http://www.ltdcr.com.cn/ ]办理香港公司注册[/url],[url=http://www.rfcpa.hk/ ]香港瑞丰会计师事务所[/url],[url=http://www.ltdcr.hk/ ]香港注册公司[/url],落实[url=http://www.rf.hk/ ]注册香港公司[/url]政策,有关[url=http://www.bvicr.com.cn/ ]登记注册香港公司[/url]工作方式,切实[url=http://www.richfu.com.cn/ ]公司企业注册登记[/url]可行,促进[url=http://www.hkltdcr.com.cn/ ]注册香港美国公司[/url]广泛应用,联系电话00852-25430881

Final Fantasy XI gold

Earning Final Fantasy XI gold is not so hard. Try your best and then you can get it.


When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!

The comments to this entry are closed.