Monday, January 16, 2006



(1) "Congressman Barr and I have disagreed many times over the years, but we have joined together today with thousands of our fellow citizens-Democrats and Republicans alike-to express our shared concern that America's Constitution is in grave danger. In spite of our differences over ideology and politics, we are in strong agreement that the American values we hold most dear have been placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the Administration to a truly breathtaking expansion of executive power."

GORE LIES. Here is the truth: Similar claims have been been made before by previous presidents and upheld by the courts; therefore they are NOT unprecedented, or breathtaking.
(2) "As we begin this new year, the Executive Branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses."
GORES LIES. Here is the truth (according to the NYTIMES original article): The numbers are NOT HUGE, but miniscule. The original NYTIMES article asserted that as many as 1000 US persons (not all of whom might be CITIZENS) had ONLY their INTERNATIONAL calls to AL QAEDA interecepted. This is 1/300th of 1/tenth of one-percent of the US population; [this figure has been corrected, courtesy of a commenter.]. In addition, Bush DID CONSULT AND INFORM BOTH CONGRESS AND THE FISC. So, it was not unilateral and without regard for Congress or FISA.

(3) "The New York Times reported that the President decided to launch this massive eavesdropping program 'without search warrants or any new laws that would permit such domestic intelligence collection.' "

ANOTHER GORE LIE. Here is the truth: The intercepted calls were INTERNATIONAL not domestic; there is a difference. Even the 2nd NYTIMES article on this matter conceded that according to their leakers only a dozen DOMESTIC calls were intertcepted and these were only intercepted by accident. AGAIN: "massive" is a concept that just doesn't apply to the program.
(4) "During the period when this eavesdropping was still secret, the President went out of his way to reassure the American people on more than one occasion that, of course, judicial permission is required for any government spying on American citizens and that, of course, these constitutional safeguards were still in place. But surprisingly, the President's soothing statements turned out to be false."
GORE LIES AGAIN. Here is the truth: When Bush was talking about court-ordered wiretaps, he was specifically talking about ROVING WIRETAPS and the PATRIOT ACT. And besides: WHY WOULD THE POTUS LEAK A SECRET OPERATION!?
(5) "At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persisnthtly."
GORE IS LYING. Here is the truth: The NSA intercepts were NOT domestic and were highly targeted and not pervasive. LOOKIT FOLKS: when you go to the airport to catch a flight from JFK to Heathrow in the UK you do NOT go to the DOMESTIC terminal; you go to the INTERNATIONAL terminal. DOMESTIC means ENTIRELY WITHIN THE USA. These intercepts were NOT "ENTIRELY WITHIN THE USA;" hence anyone who calls it "domestic surveillance" is LYING.
(6) "As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its actions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police it. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws."
That's a LIE. Here's the TRUTH: Bush acted CONSTITUTIONALLY according to Clinton USA Associate AG John Schmidt and liberal constitutional lawyer Cass Sunstein - and many other lawyers who cite NUMEROUS cases, INCLUDING THE SCOTUS. The 1972 SCOTUS KEITH DECISION and subsequent decisions in the FISCR and the FISC and federal district courts have ALL upheld the power of the POTUS, as CiC, to order warrantless collection of signal intelligence within the USA and on US CITIZENS in order to gather intel on FOREIGN powers to aid national security. [Nixon CLAIMED (falsely) that his targets were domestic threats, and that's why the SCOTUS held what he did was unconstitutional.]
(7) "And the disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution that is deeply troubling to millions of Americans in both political parties."
I agree that many people are troubled by this program, but I assert it's because DEMAGOGUES of the Left - like Gore - have blown it WAY OUT OF PROPORTION; for example, this sentence AGAIN refers to the program as "mass violations of the law." This is so hyperbolic it is mendacious.
(8) "... the President has also declared that he has a heretofore unrecognized inherent power to seize and imprison any American citizen that he alone determines to be a threat to our nation, and that, notwithstanding his American citizenship, the person imprisoned has no right to talk with a lawyer-even to argue that the President or his appointees have made a mistake and imprisoned the wrong person. The President claims that he can imprison American citizens indefinitely for the rest of their lives without an arrest warrant, without notifying them about what charges have been filed against them, and without informing their families that they have been imprisoned. At the same time, the Executive Branch has claimed a previously unrecognized authority to mistreat prisoners in its custody in ways that plainly constitute torture in a pattern that has now been documented in U.S. facilities located in several countries around the world."
These are just more distortions and hyperbole from Gore. The truth is that the SCOTUS has held that the POTUS can designate as US citizen an enemy combatant. Enemy combatants - like POW's - can be held until the the end of the hostilities. And neither the POTUS or any other part of the executive branch has ever condoned torture. Whenever and wherever torture, or even less harmful acts, such as degradation, were discovered the perps have been punished. As for RENDITION of dangerous terrorists to SECRET PRISONS outside the USA, where another nation takes custody (and maybe treats them more harshly than we would) - BEGAN UNDER THE CLINTON-GORE ADMINSTRATION. It is highly disengenuous for Gore to critique Bush for using tools invented by him and Clinton.
(9) "... after appearing to support legislation sponsored by John McCain to stop the continuation of torture, the President declared in the act of signing the bill that he reserved the right not to comply with it."
GORE IS DISTORTING AGAIN. here's the truth: This is standard and common POTUS "signing-talk" - and Clinton did the same thing as he signed numerous bills - including the INTELLIGENCE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT in 1998. AGAIN: Gore is trying to make Bush seem SINGULARLY evil, when in fact what Bush is asserting about POTUS powers has been asserted by VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT.
(10) "There have of course been other periods of American history when the Executive Branch claimed new powers that were later seen as excessive and mistaken. Our second president, John Adams, passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts and sought to silence and imprison critics and political opponents. When his successor, Thomas Jefferson, eliminated the abuses he said: "[The essential principles of our Government] form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation... [S]hould we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety."

Our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Some of the worst abuses prior to those of the current administration were committed by President Wilson during and after WWI with the notorious Red Scare and Palmer Raids. The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII marked a low point for the respect of individual rights at the hands of the executive. And, during the Vietnam War, the notorious COINTELPRO program was part and parcel of the abuses experienced by Dr. King and thousands of others."
WELL WELL WELL: GORE TELLS THE TRUTH! What Gore fails to see is the OBVIOUS: That EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ACTS WAS A GREATER "POTUS POWER GRAB" THAN ANYTHING BUSH HAS DONE. Yet, Gore still idolizes FDR and Lincoln, for example. And rightly so. What each of these Presidents they did during wartime was justified and constitutional (except for the GREATEST one of them all, LINCOLN!). [As for Cointelpro: it was held to be focused on domestic threats and therefore not within the powers of the POTUS as CiC (who can independently order surveillance of FOREIGN threats).]

Gore and all the other BDS afflicted politicians should STOP LYING AND DISTORTING or just shut up.

[NOTE: There are a few sane critics of the president's NSA intercept program who have voiced legitimate concerns about the scope of the program and whether there were enough safeguards to ensure that the scope was limited, but Gore is OBVIOUSLY NOT one of them.

I want to remind you all that when the FISC orders SECRET electronic surveillance on a US citizens it is up to the USA AG (and his agencies) or ther CIA's IG or the NSA's IG to make sure (through self-policing) that the order is correctly adhered to. The very same procedures and oversight were in effect for this program too - so there was never any GREATER threat that THIS SECRET program would abused than any other FISC ordered surveillance. Thinking there could, or would be, is illogical.]

More HERE, and TEXT here, too. And there's more HERE. And there's ALWAYS more at POWERLINE, who rightly recommends this excellent post with historical background by the always amazing GATEWAY PUNDIT.


Howard said...

The only thing that I see was done was to expose all this activity to the enemy..Is that not treason??

Reliapundit said...

yes, treason.

Anonymous said...

So... do you have citations for any of your legal criticism or do you just enjoy abusing caps lock?

Reliapundit said...

to anonymous SKEPTIC:

the legal criticism have all been posted on this blog numerous times. google them at this blog, or google JOHN SCHMIDT's Chicago-trib op-ed, and/or cass sunstein's post at the Univ Chicago Law School blog.

the SCOTUS decision is KEITH 1972.

the FISCR (fisa court of review) decision was 2002. the hamdan case, if i recall correctly.

BTW: powell wrote the decision on the 1972 scotus case - and every court since then has followed his lead: NOT ONE COURT HAS EVER LIMITED THE POTUS/CiC's power to gather "sigint" about a foreign enemy. not the FISCR not the FISC not any federal district court.

this is not an executive branch power; it resides with the POTUS as CiC (and must be vetted/approved by his lawyer, USA AG and the relevant secretaries/agency heads - as with any executive finding/order.)


Reliapundit said...

to anonymous skeptic AGAIN:

i also posted verbatim excerpts from the original nytimes article which shows HOW EFFIN' LIMITED/TARGETED/FICUSED the program was ACCORDING TO THE LEAKERS!

look for it.

Anonymous said...

Now follow along kiddies:

1/300th of 300 million is 1 million.

10% of 1 million is 100,000.

1% of 1 million is 10,000.

0.1% of 1 million is 1,000.

1000 is not 1/300th of .00001% of 300 million.

It is 1/300th of .1% of 300 million.

Reliapundit said...

thanks for doing the math. i will make the change. (i didin;t do the math; i was trying to remember the figure which i read somewhere else!)

will you admit this is MINSCULE and not massive surveillance as Gore and the other loonylefties say?

there is room for sane disagreement with bush on this matter. see the above post.

Anonymous said...

Well obviously 1000 is miniscule realtive to the entire population. But, first off, the number is thousands, not 1000. And by what logic would you claim that even "just" 1000 violations of the law is so trivial as to be what,,,ignored? No one ever claimed that Bush was eavesdropping on all Americans, so what is the meaning of the comparison to the total population? If President Hillary broke into 1000 homes to seize our rifles (just to use an example I'm guessing you could relate to), would you blow that off because it is only 1/300th of 0.1% of the population?

And you do understand, dont you, that the reason there are requirements for warrents is so that YOUR conversations aren't listened to - that there be some check to insure that the program is limited to only those for whom there really is probable cause that they are communicating with terrorists.

What kind of a free man are you that you don't demand such limited restrictions on the government?

And the law requires warrents for conversations that include an American or someone in America. That means international calls that originate or terminate here, as well as wholly domestic calls. Do you really not know this?

I dont have the time to fisk everyone of your points, but every time that I see you say "lie", you happen to be mistaken, at the very least.

Anonymous said...

I apologize for my lack of HTML knowledge, but according to this article:
we know that FBI officials were frustrated at the thousands of pointless tips they received through this program. Putting aside the simple argument that our constitution cannot be superceded no matter how many or few are affected, this program quite obviously affected far more than 1,000 Americans. It was in no fathomable way "miniscule." And it does not in any way make me a "loony lefty" to state that NO MAN is above the constitution. No provisions of the constitution can be unilaterally discarded because we are in a perpetual state of war. If they could, why not ban all guns. Period. Outlaw the second amendment. If there are sooo many bad guys out to do us harm that we need to ignore the fourth amendment, why not ditch them all? I happen to think the constitution is worth it. At least be intellectually honest and say you disagree.

Anonymous said...

And BTW:
"Nixon CLAIMED (falsely) that his targets were domestic threats, and that's why the SCOTUS held what he did was unconstitutional."
Bush claims the Quakers are a domestic threat and needed to be under surveillance. Do you honestly believe that a pacifist religion that has been in our country since its founding is a domestic threat? Bush is abusing the constitution and his executive authority under it. If you want to live in a dictatorship, I can think of several that would love to have you. I have no desire to succumb to one myself.

Anonymous said...

Most of these "lie" points are wrong, based primarily on a misunderstanding of what Gore is saying. I'll go through them point-by-point:

1) You don't really lay out an explanation as to why Gore's "unprecedented" claim is wrong. But if you read the speech (starting with "There are reasons for concern this time around that conditions may be changing..." and continue for seven paragraphs), you might understand Gore's point. In short, claims of unilateral executive power combined with a war on terror that doesn't have a set endpoint create a "unprecedented" situation.

2) Already addressed by other commenters.

3) He is not incorrect to refer to it as "domestic intelligence collection" because one of the parties is in the United States. The rules for collecting intelligence (before the executive order) involve FISA when one or both parties are US people.

4) Some of what Bush has said:

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order," he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.

"Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so," he added.

On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use "roving wiretaps," which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.

"You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example," he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

5) You seem to be confused when Gore means domestic. If one party is in the US (and is a citizen or a US person), then it is a domestic conversation per FISA rules. For example, a citizen doesn't lose their privacy rights when they make a call to Canada.

6) Some lawyers believe he acted constitutionally, many others do not (Tribe, Congressional Research, etc.). Just because Gore doesn't agree with the opinions of Sunstein and other doesn't mean he's a liar. (Or just because Cass Sunstein says something means that it's the TRUTH.

7) Being discussed by the commenters, but hundreds/thousands of crimes sound pretty "mass" to me.

8) I'm not clear what the point is here (sorry).

9) President's normally, when signing bills, say that they reserve the right to not comply with a bill that he is signing? I find this highly doubtful. If this is the case, then you can easily provide some examples....enough to show that this is "standard and common POTUS "signing-talk""

Anonymous said...

Yes, as to point 9.

You are the liar. Other presidents issue signing statements. But they do not do so to assert the right to violate the very law they are signing.

Do you really think the exectutive has, or should have such power? What would be the point of having a Congress in the first place, or a law (or a reverence for a strict textual analysis of the law) if the president can reinterpret the law to fit his pleasure?

Reliapundit said...

(1) I want to remind you all that when the FISC orders SECRET electronic surveillance on a US citizens it is up to the USA AG (and his agencies) or ther CIA's IG or the NSA's IG to make sure (through self-policing) that the order is correctly adhered to.

The very same procedures and oversight were in effect for this program too - so there was never any GREATER threat that THIS SECRET program would abused than any other FISC ordered surveillance. Thinking there could, or would be, is illogical.

(2) llama wrote: 6) Some lawyers believe he [bush] acted constitutionally, many others do not (Tribe, Congressional Research, etc.). Just because Gore doesn't agree with the opinions of Sunstein and other doesn't mean he's a liar. (Or just because Cass Sunstein says something means that it's the TRUTH.

RELIAPUNDIT: gore OVERSTATES his case with such hyperbole that it is a lie. that's whya i posted.

also you wrote: "You don't really lay out an explanation as to why Gore's "unprecedented" claim is wrong. "

carter clinton washinton lincoln fdr adams truman all asserted these rights. some were correct. the assertion of these rights is not novel, not unprecented. also: there is AMPLE case law from scotus to fiscr to fisc and fed district courts which say it's okay. and fisa was NEVER intended to effect NSA intercepts of international calls. see above post.

also you wrote: ") President's normally, when signing bills, say that they reserve the right to not comply with a bill that he is signing? I find this highly doubtful."

but it is TRUYE. clinton said the same thing when he signed the " intellignece whistlenower protction act." in 1998.
i posted his comments verbatim. look/search at my blog, or google at my blog.

Reliapundit said...

if the govt has a wiretao on gotti, and you call gotti YOUR rights havenl;t been unreasonably taken away.

you are incidental to the surveillance.


as democrat libeal lawyer BASS said on HARDBALL last night:

fisa only says you can't TARGET the US person.

if the program was run as the treasonous leakers and the traitorous nytimes claim it was, then fisa just doesn't apply:

the "sigint" of a foreign power we are at war with was intercepted. including international calls to and from the usa.

janbe haron AGREES with this. as do many many lawyers on the lb/dem side.

no sane person thinks this is impeachable.

some sane golks who are skeptiocal of its legality/constitutionality think it is on a grey area, and needs to be nmore closely vetted by more congressmen and maybe the courts.

Reliapundit said...

Americans deserve no less

By Robert McCallum

After Sept. 11, President Bush pledged to use "every tool of intelligence ... and every necessary weapon of war" to prevent another attack. The president has done just that — and all of his actions have been lawful and consistent with those of past presidents.

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government," former vice president Al Gore said in remarks Monday.

From World War II to the present, presidents have employed their constitutional authority to conduct surveillance on foreign agents without court order — and every appellate court to consider conduct of this kind has upheld it. President Clinton ordered the search of Russian spy Aldrich Ames' home without court approval.

President Bush's program, like those before it, has proven its value by foiling deadly plots on our soil. Nor has the president acted alone. He has kept congressional leaders advised of the wiretapping program, and Congress itself expressly authorized the use of "all necessary and appropriate force" against the terrorists.

The Supreme Court in the Hamdi military-detainee case in 2004 recognized the significance of this authorization, and past presidents have used similar congressional resolutions to deploy all of the tools of warfare — including electronic surveillance — to find and attack the enemy. The American people deserve no less from our leaders today.

When the president signed the McCain-Graham amendment concerning treatment of detainees, he issued a statement that he would interpret the law consistent with his constitutional authority. The recent claim by some that this reflects intent to "ignore" the law is wrong.

The amendment reflects the president's — and our nation's — policies and values, and the president is fully committed to executing it faithfully. Because the Constitution gives the president authority over wartime and foreign affairs, however, presidents often have issued similar signing statements when Congress legislates in these areas. Nothing different happened here.

The McCain-Graham amendment also provides that scores of frivolous lawsuits by detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, — seeking everything from access to DVDs to high-speed Internet access for their lawyers — must be dismissed. The bipartisan law replaces these suits with a new, balanced court review system to ensure that every detainee is properly held.

While some may disagree, the Supreme Court has long said laws modifying jurisdiction take effect immediately, and that interpretation is echoed by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who sponsored the legislation. While all detainees should be treated fairly, the brave men and women serving our country should be focused on their military mission, not distracted by defending themselves against baseless lawsuits.

President Bush has said that he will use every lawful means to prevent another attack. History would not forgive us if we did anything less.

Robert McCallum is associate attorney general in the Justice Department.

Find this article at:

Anonymous said...

"fisa only says you can't TARGET the US person."

Court documents show that Bush did target the Quakers (who are SEVERAL "US persons") . They were not brought into this investigation by talking on the phone to an AQ member. They were specifically targeted for the sole reason that they disagreed with our Dear Leader. Sorry, you need a new talking point.

Reliapundit said...

tom - the quote u don't like is from the dem lib who wrote the fisa law.
check out his comments in my hardball post, and check out my post on jane harmon.

these two give sane criticisms of the program - criticisms which are TENTATIVE; they accept that the program may very well be totally fine. harmon has said if the program is as it was outlined to her and the gang of 8, then it is legal and constitutional. she said only eniterly domestic calls would NOT be.

Nordy said...

You keep insisting that the program was limited, but you obviously did not read today's NYT article explaining that it was much more pervasive that the White House has admitted to. According to the article, the program required "hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month." The lack of any sort of relevent intelligence emerging from the program demoralized the FBI.

And whistleblower Tice says that the number of Americans eavesdropped on "could be in the millions."

Nordy said...

By the way, how does exposure of this program make us less safe? Al Qaeda already knew we had the authrority to eavesdrop on their conversations. All it required was a FISA warrant. Only 1/300th of 1/tenth of one-percent of FISA warrant requests were rejected (I kid, but you get the point). In fact, the NSA had the authority to begin surveillance without a warrant, so long as they applied for one within 72 hours.

The unfortunate thing is that it is the very program, not the exposure of the program, which makes us less safe. If we are eavesdropping on actual terrorists who are plotting actual attacks, the evidence we gather via the warantless NSA program will be inadmissable in a court of law. If we had just gone to the FISA court and gotten a warrant, we could prosecute the real terrorist bastards.

I guess your response will be that Bush has the right to arrest and imprison indefinitely anyone he wants, Constitution be damned. And if that's how you truly feel, I'm certainly not going to be able to convince you that the Constitution is worth protecting.

Reliapundit said...


as ken bass - a dem/lib lawyer who cowrote FISA said on HARDBALL last night:

(1) NSA data-mining is legal - becaesu it doen't target individuals.

the article you cited in today's NYTIMES referred to data-mining info from the NSA given to the FBI. that is totally legal and GOOD.

i think tice confuses these two programs too.

(2) by exposing the program we are less safe. it confirms things which al qaeda MIGHT have suspected. confirming thinsg is important. nd helps them. alos remember: mafiosi maye also reasonably expect their communications to be surveilled, and this doesn't stop them from using phones or email. if they KNEW it was all being intercepted, then they would modify their communications and make it touigher for law enforcement to do their job.

when we intercept internbational communications between al qaeda and agents her we are PREVENTING attacks. that is good.

fbi agents and others in law enforce may always need a FISA court order, but the POTUS/CiC doesn't. this has been a long held legal position backed up with the 1972 SCOTUS decision in the Keith case andf by FISCR and FISC and several federal courts and previous presidents. Bush is on safe ground as liong as the NSA diod not overstep the programs boundaires. this is what Harmon says and i agree with her.

also: FISC ansd scotus have decided that in wartime the POTSUS as CiC ghas the right to detain enemy combatants, this is not new or novel to bush.

ALSO: there is NO WALL: info from NSA can be given to the FBI and used in court. according to FISCR FSIC and SCOTUS.

thanks for reading and commenting.

Nordy said...

Re: Gorelick

(courtesy of Think Progress)
2. Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified in 1994 that the President could conduct warrantless physical searches, before FISA required physical searches to be conducted pursuant to a warrant. Gorelick was arguing that the President could conduct warrantless physical searches in the absence of Congressional action. At no time did she suggest that, after Congress required the President to obtain a warrant, the executive branch could ignore the law, nor is there any evidence the Clinton administration failed to comply with FISA.

Reliapundit said...

nordy: have u read the scotus' keith 1972 decision or the FISCR decision or schmidt's op-ed or sunstein's!?

have you read ken bass or jane harmon?

seems like u haven't.

none of these sources can be described as pro-bush partisans; they ALL assert the potus/CiC ordered NSA intercept progam was legal and constitutional.

As Joe Klein wrote in TIME:

"Democrats are on thin ice here.

Some of the wilder donkeys talked about a possible Bush impeachment after the NSA program was revealed.

The latest version of the absolutely necessary Patriot Act, which updates the laws regulating the war on terrorism and contains civil-liberties improvements over the first edition, was nearly killed by a stampede of Senate Democrats.

Most polls indicate that a strong majority of Americans favor the act, and I suspect that a strong majority would favor the NSA program as well, if its details were declassified and made known.

[...] and until the Democrats make clear that they will err on the side of aggressiveness in the war against al-Qaeda, they will probably not regain the majority in Congress or the country. "

i have been a registered dem since 1974. and i am a hawk.

i regret that MY party is back under the control of McGovernite doves and appeasers and the loony left.

i agree with joe klein.

Anonymous said...

1000 is not 1/300th of .00001% of 300 million.

It is 1/300th of .1% of 300 million.

Hey, that's pretty good. I guess I have taught you something at least. Now let's see how you do with this one. What's .03% of 5645?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

HI!, Geat Blog! Thanks for the info. Compliments on your design! Ciao, Rita :-)

Anonymous said...

Top qualitymen's jacket,
These cheap jacket are on sale now,you can find
north face jackets inmage on our web

Do you wannaghd hair straighteners for you own , we have many
cheap ghd hair straightenersin style and great,you can choose one from these
hair straighteners

Anonymous said...

Authentic chaussure puma
chaussure sport
And chaussure nike shoes
Come here to have a look of our Wholesale Jeans
Many fashionMens Jeans ,eye-catching
Womens Jeans ,and special out standing
Blue Jeans ,you can spend less money on our
Discount Jeans but gain really fine jeans, absolutely a great bargain.
China Wholesale
wholesale from china
buy products wholesale
China Wholesalers