1 She's obviously a racist bitter-clinger!

2
Obviously a raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaccccisssst! tea bagger!

3 Oh my.  What'll the Left make of this?

4 Clarence Thomas's wife and pointedly accepting $$ from corporations?  Can't wait for the boy king to lash out on this one.  Get the popcorn ready!

5 Good job, Virginia.

6

Can't wait for the boy king to lash out on this one.  Get the popcorn ready!~Peaches

For some reason I read "boy king" as boinking at first glance.  Barack is boinking America.

7
Why, it's almost as if those evil corporations think they can do whatever they want with that money they earned.   Don't they know that's Wee Wee's stash?

8 Oh my, liberal heads have to be exploding all accross the country right now.

9 Ginny's husband is not a *real* black man.

10 The LAT already ran a hit piece. Guess what. It was stupid.

11 Does he sell watermelons by the side of the road?

12
Ginny's husband is not a *real* black man.

Unless he's allegedly being the stereotyped as the Scary Black Man Rapist by the media.  Otherwise he's an Uncle Tom.

13 Another attractive woman for the radical left to hate.

14
Oh my.  What'll the Left make of this?

Posted by: MDr VB1.0 CS1st at March 14, 2010 12:53 PM (ucq49)

You already know what they'll make of it. They have cute little names for black conservatives like Clarence Thomas

15 Yes Santa, there really is a Virginia...

16 Oh, the left would be charmed by this, I'm sure...if she were a member of Code Pink writing demented commie gibberish, and married to Charlie Rangel or the like.
As is, they'll confine themselves to hurling racist insults. The Democrat Party (of Slavery) only tolerates the right kind of race-mixing, after all...

17 A Black Conservative can not order lunch at a left-wing eatery. Such progress.

18 There are no Blacks in the Tea Party movement!  OK a few of the whites are married to some, but like MSNBC, the Tea Party is Lilly white!

19 And Clarence sat there grinning...Waaaay to GO!!!

20


There are plenty of blacks working at MSNBC. Why, who do you think serves me in the network lunchroom and gets my coffee?

21 Outstanding! I can't wait to see the group's policy positions.

22 I think I hear KosKiddie heads exploding...

23 Lobbying orgs have always been able to get corporate money they just couldn't make their own ads.

24
Tea Party?

She must be a racist libertarian... with ties to stormfront.

/FUCJ

25
I think I hear KosKiddie heads exploding...

Posted by: billygoat at March 14, 2010 01:11 PM (5qJM5)

Well theres nothing in them to make a mess. Just a dry pop.

26 Their spin will be that Clarence Thomas is not black.  Period.

27 Well, obviously Justice Thomas is a race traitor. Duh.

28 I love Clarence Thomas but is it not a little icky seeing a Supreme Court Justice at a political convention. How would we react if we saw Ruth Bader Ginsberg at a pro-choice rally or Sam Alito at a DNC fundraiser/gay orgy?

29 Obviously an inauthentic woman and an inauthentic black man.

30 How would we react if we saw Ruth Bader Ginsberg at a pro-choice rally or Sam Alito at a DNC fundraiser/gay orgy?

Posted by: Aaron at March 14, 2010 01:17 PM (pVvKc)

Uhmm Ruth Bader Ginsberg has spoken at NOW conventions on several occasions and Sam Alito is concervative so I would be quite surprised to see him at a DNC fundraiser/gay orgy.

31 "As I looked at that picture I forgot for several minutes he is a 'black man'."

32
I love Clarence Thomas but is it not a little icky seeing a Supreme Court Justice at a political convention.

I too share your concern, as a long time conservative Christian I too am concerned about the icky-ness.  Concerned.

33

Obviously Clarence Thomas is a racist, a Nazi, a creationist and a global warming denier.


I bid you adieu.

34 Since the Left believes Justice Thomas is not a real Black man, then let them declare his marriage "Inter-Color" not "Inter-Racial".

35 "I love Clarence Thomas but is it not a little icky seeing a Supreme Court Justice at a political convention." Yes, yes, I'm concerned. Why, I'm so concerned I've got concern leaking out of every hole in my body. I was looking for change a few minutes ago and found a huge wad of concern under my couch. Stinky, slimy concern. Love the nice, Biblical name, BTW.

36

Why I am so concerned, I eat drink and crap concern. Did I ever mention how oh so very concerned I am ? I am Concerned I tell ya', CONCERNED !

37

Yeah, he/they will be trashed up one side and down the other for this.

The leftist MSM will turn this into Thomas's ACORN and start demanding he step down from the Court.  Just watch.

38 I'm concerned that Aaron won't be named Concerned Christian of the Month by the writers of Concerned Christians Monthly. Is there anything that can make my concerns less concerning?

39 "Posted by: Concerned Christian Conservative at March 14, 2010 01:37 PM (t72+4)" I take a back seat to no one in the concern department.

40 This is bad. Not that Virginia Thomas is starting this group, not the group itself, not that she is the wife of the (in my house) revered Justice Thomas.

The Supreme Court, the most politically neutral branch of the government, on it's face at least, is being forced to openly choose sides. Justice Alito has already spoken in criticism of the administration and their lapdogs in the Congress, placing himself in opposition. Now Justice Thomas has, through his wife, done the same (and don't give me the "private citizen" argument, at that level there is no such thing and you KNOW he stands four square behind her, as he should).

It's not come to a full break, at least not openly, but this does not auger well. The SCOTUS, like the Army, is supposed to be politically, if not ideologically, neutral. They're dropping the mask, or more correctly being forced to drop the mask in self defense. This idiot administration is dividing everybody and doesn't realize or doesn't care. This path cannot end anywhere good.

I hope to God the elections this year are a figurative bloodbath, because if they're not and the government continues on this disastrous path, we may see a real one sooner than we like.

41 40, Sorry, do not agree. The SCOTUS rulings are supposed to be politically neutral, the Justices are not so required. They enjoy the same Constitutional Rights as the rest of us. The Justices can walk and chew gum at the same time, well except Ruth of the Hill People.

42

Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at March 14, 2010 01:42 PM (lxpVp)

BS, Thomas's wife is free to do anything legaly she wants to do, even in Obama's America.

43 And let me clarify: had the SCOTUS not been openly attacked and ridiculed, I don't believe it would have come to this at all. This is a form of self defense by our most esteemed jurists, and the perception is that they no longer trust the other branches to function constitutionally.

I don't blame them, I blame those who drove them to it and I would do so regardless of what political party they belong to. What is at issue is Executive overreach, not the legal reaction. I don't think the Rubicon has been crossed, but it is coming into view.

44 The SCOTUS, like the Army, is supposed to be politically, if not ideologically, neutral. They're dropping the mask, or more correctly being forced to drop the mask in self defense. This idiot administration is dividing everybody and doesn't realize or doesn't care.

I hope my faith in the military and its commanders (besides CiC) isn't misplaced. I'd like to think that if teh Won really does try to do some stupid takeover a la Chavez, the military would simply stand down.

Or, in the best case scenario, arrest the traitorous bastard and toss him into Gitmo.

45

The SCOTUS, like the Army, is supposed to be politically, if not ideologically, neutral. They're dropping the mask, or more correctly being forced to drop the mask in self defense.

That was just Mr. Clarence Thomas supporting his wife Mrs. Clarence Thomas.  What you need to be concerned about are obvious political rulings on individual cases coming out of the Supreme Court of the United States.

46 greatness!

47 Ginsberg is clearly an extraterrestrial, and I'm concerned. Dammit.

48 You're misunderstanding me. Of course she can do what she wants, in fact I think this is a good idea. What worries me is that she felt compelled to do so at all.

The SCOTUS should NEVER have to defend itself from public attack by the other two branches: it's credibility rests in part on it's putative neutrality. I'm not arguing that the justices are ACTUALLY neutral, but the forms have always been observed.

Of course, they've never been openly attacked and mocked in a public forum before, either.

49 40  SCOTUS stopped being apolitical a long time ago; this is just noteworthy for the fact that conservatives are finally back.  It's taken 70 years of liberal judges acting as black-robed philosopher-kings for us to get to this point.  Suck it, libs.

50 Oh, and wtr, rest easy w/regards to your faith in the armed services. Their loyalties lie with the Constitution and the People, not any elected leader.

Especially one who has made clear his disdain for them...

51

I am not in favor of this at all. Clarence Thomas has been my favorite justice since Scalito upheld the government in the CA medical marijuana law, but the wives of SCOTUS justices should NOT become political activists.

We have been trying to get politics out of the court, not more in.

52 Of course, they've never been openly attacked and mocked in a public forum before, either.

Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at March 14, 2010 01:51 PM (lxpVp)

I guess I'm not understanding you. I am also going to just take her at her word for the reasons she is doing what she is doing and not read a defense of Obama's whimpy little attack which was wrong on the law as an alterior motive.

53 49 finally *fighting* back

54 Frankly, the SCOTUS stopped being apolitical with John Marshall. That's not the concern.The concern is with perception. If the SCOTUS divides along power/opposition lines instead of just legal philosophical ones, it becomes one more battlefield in which war is openly waged. It also becomes much easier to justify finagling with it's structure once it becomes seen as politically hostile rather than just philosophically opposed. It's a small distinction, but a critical one.

Again, at this time the real hazard from this act is minimal, but the portents of it are not good for national unity.

55 I used to be concerned but I decided to let Aaron do all the concerning for me.  Frees me up to drink Val U Rite.

Thanks Aaron for all the concern and shit.

56

I don't want to see it get to the point of the military having to choose sides.  The military is a top-down organization, basic training is designed to mold soldiers to take orders, not think about the orders and whether or not they should be taken.  There is major rot at the top of the military, how else could Major Hassan have made it to the rank of major and nobody dared say a word against him? 

The current attempted takeover of America has to be stopped before it ever gets to the level of the US military.

57

There is no one on here that is more concerned than I am. To prove it, I say we all have a concern fight to the death.

58 When has a leftist of any occupation not aligned themselves along power/opposition lines?  I'm not disputing that this isn't good for SCOTUS; it just seems to me like the further left a person is the more their politics takes over their thought and lives.  Even the justices are not immune because it's part of their being.

59 Again, at this time the real hazard from this act is minimal, but the portents of it are not good for national unity.

Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at March 14, 2010 01:58 PM (lxpVp)

National unity? you're kidding right? This country has been divided politically forever. We breifly came together to fight WWII but that didn't last long, not even all the way through the war. That's why we have two political parties and why we let the elected president of one of them appoint the Surpreme's.

60 57, Blazer, I'm concerned that your proposal for a concern fight to the death will leave some only wounded. A double tap requirement is needed.

61 I told you this would happen once you allowed mixing of the races.  She's the kind of person I was talking about in that 60 Minutes interview.

62 Blazer, I'm really concerned that your handle could contribute to forest fires. Please, for God's sake, do something!

63 I bumped into Clarence Thomas at Dulles Airport once.  He mentioned he'd just gotten back from a visit to Arizona, and he observed, "The one thing I noticed was that every living thing in that desert wants to kill you."  An astute analysis of natural selection and environmental adaptation at work, I thought.

64

Lets also not forget that the Wise Potato Chips Latina™ was a member of La Raza (The Race) while she was a sitting federal judge and before she was ever appointed to SCOTUS.

65 62, It's ok. She's trained him to eat cucumber sandwiches and drink TAB.

66 Based on her ruling in the fireman's case I'm sure the Wise Latina knows nothing of this Constitution everyone speaks of.

67 stuiec@63, Yeah, all joking aside, Thomas is a truly admirable man.

68
Blazer, I'm concerned that your proposal for a concern fight to the death will leave some only wounded.

A double tap requirement is needed.

Posted by: eman at March 14, 2010 02:05 PM (xJwcz)

You're right. Lets just have a dance-off instead.

69 You're right. Lets just have a dance-off instead.

Posted by: Blazer at March 14, 2010 02:13 PM (t72+4)

 

I'm in!

70 Posted by: robtr at March 14, 2010 02:05 PM (fwSHf)

When I refer to national unity, think 1861 not 1961. The tradeoff in appointing justices is one of those unwritten compromises everybody puts up with. FDR damn near upset the applecart on that one, and didn't get anywhere with it because a) everyone thought it was a shitty idea that would have cost him too much support and b) the SCOTUS caved.

The divisions within the SCOTUS have always been philosophical: it's why we refer to justices as strict or loose constructionist as opposed to Republican or Democrat. Make that switch, though, and the cover is gone; anything goes because it is now an open political battlefield. I will NEVER argue the justices are immune to their own ideology, but that fig leaf of personal impartiality is what has preserved the overall independence of SCOTUS for 200+ years.

In short, no one fucks with them because if they are perceived to be in opposition, it is in opposition to a policy and not to a person or party. Obama is forcing them to look like they are choosing sides, which damages their appearance of neutrality and opens them up for retaliation. It is a SHITTY thing to have done on his part and completely detrimental to the structure of our system of government, but there it is.

71 You're right. Lets just have a dance-off instead. Posted by: Blazer Agreed. My old Soul Train outfit is around here somewhere.....

72 I'm mildly concerned about the level of concern concerning concern. But not enough to express it.

73

Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at March 14, 2010 02:16 PM (lxpVp)

Well it's obvious we disagree, the justices are referred to every day as liberal or conservative. The only time they are referred to as a strict constutionist is when a president or senator is describing them. No one believes that crap, that's why it's only used before and during confirmation hearings.

I really don't think Virginia Thomas's becoming politically active is going to start a civil war or make anyone believe that Justice Thomas wasn't a conservative before his wife became politically active. Not anyone that has ever watched a news report about Thomas anyway.

74

I remember watching her with my utmost admiration, sitting behind her husband as he faced down the Senate Judiciary Committee.

God bless them both, every minute.

75 Thats all fine and good, but it stinks a little too much of astroturf, no matter how true or untrue that may be. Frankly this will not play any differently in the media than the NY Times strategist that started the "grassroots" Coffee Party. I'm all for her activism here, but this will not play well with the Tea Party reputation at all.

76

56  I don't want to see it get to the point of the military having to choose sides. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Believe me, from what I'm hearing in the lower ranks they already have.

Here's what I find interesting. Everyone is assuming the democrats are on a November suicide mission with the ObamaCare bill. I'm not so sure it's that easy/cut-n-dry. I'm thinking there might be "Florida 2000" type mini messes throughout several states to hold up election results and contest them, if not steal them outright at the ballot box.

Am I paranoid? Maybe. I hope I'm not prescient.

I am reminded of some Clinton staffer-type that was on some White House committe or whatever that refused to leave her seat that Bush was filling with his own staffer after the Fla. 2000 multi-million recount was finally over and he took office. I cannot remember her name or the seat she was in, but she claimed Bush was NOT the president and she would stay where she was until the election was turned around and Gore took office (I might be a bit off on the details here). Anyhow, for a bit they brought in an additional seat so that Pres. Bush's guy could assume his position, and the woman hang around for a bit (but not certain when she finally gave up or was removed).

Anyone else remember this?

77 Ginni stood up for her husband during the Anita Hill travesty.

78 "Anyone else remember this?" Mary Francis Berry, US Commission on Civil Rights

79

Anyhow, for a bit they brought in an additional seat so that Pres. Bush's guy could assume his position, and the woman hang around for a bit (but not certain when she finally gave up or was removed).

I think that was a emporary appointee to the EEOC who refused to leave. Of course they pussy-footed around her because she was black.

80 We've been told by white elitists that Thomas isn't really "black", so the tea parties are still lily white in the standards set by such race experts as Keith Olbermann and Charles Johnson

81 Again, at this time the real hazard from this act is minimal, but the portents of it are not good for national unity.
Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at March 14, 2010 01:58 PM

As a lifelong concerned Christian conservative, I think it hurts Frum's our cause to have a conservative judge speak his mind. It only upsets the unity that wise latinas and educated people want for America.

82 Why are you all riding my ass over my objection about Clarence Thomas being at CPAC? I've been defending him against liberal attacks since the day G.H.W. Bush nominated him and I'll match my Democrat-hating bona fides against anyone here. But SCOTUS is supposed to be non-partisan; that's why they sit on their hands during the State of the Union, even when the President decides to be an asshole and disses one of them. Just imagine how you'll all re-act if a Justice is seen attending a MoveOn.org convention. All I'm asking here is a little consistency here.

83 Love the nice, Biblical name, BTW.

Posted by: Bugler at March 14, 2010 01:29 PM (YCVBL)

Thank. It was the name given to me by my mother on the day I was born.

84 Payback IS a bitch. See if the (P)resident likes that bitch slap.
Irony, thy name is Virginia Thomas and she's saying that the bill is due.
Pay up liberal chumps.

85
Why are you all riding my ass over my objection about Clarence Thomas being at CPAC? I've been defending him against liberal attacks since the day G.H.W. Bush nominated him and I'll match my Democrat-hating bona fides against anyone here. But SCOTUS is supposed to be non-partisan; that's why they sit on their hands during the State of the Union, even when the President decides to be an asshole and disses one of them. Just imagine how you'll all re-act if a Justice is seen attending a MoveOn.org convention. All I'm asking here is a little consistency here.

Posted by: Aaron at March 14, 2010 03:53 PM (pVvKc)

Yes in a perfect world they would be apolitical, however they are human and also vote. The thing is all 12 are supposed to be indifferent and interpret their legal opinions through the Constitution, but what we have today is the conservatives on the bench holding the line against the liberals. Most are appointed now because of their conservative or liberal bonafides. What they did concerning the Chrysler shareholders last summer really shook my faith in SCOTUS to the core. I mentioned earlier that Sotomayor was a member of La Raza and attended their events. We need to pray for the conservatives on the bench health for the next 2.5 years until the Communist in Chief is out of the Whitehouse. We are only 1 or 2 away from radical changes being made concerning the Constitution.

86 Aaron, OK, you're not a concern troll. My apologies. I don't agree that this threatens the non-partisan nature of SCOTUS, but it's not an unreasonable view.

87 12?

88 What is really sad is that it takes something like this to put the lie to the leftist slander that conservatives are racists.

The left seems to be made up of a cadre of truly evil people who create these lies, and a whole bunch of useful idiots who buy into them and parrot them ad infinitum. 

I'm reminded of the Latte Liberal party in Florida where one person claimed (in all seriousness) that the Tea Party was a response to the success of Oprah Winfrey.  These guys really are that delusional.

When I look at the left, I get this weird sensation that I'm seeing the reason why so many civilizations have fallen into ruin throughout human history.  These people are a cancer on the body politic. 

89 Bugler,

No prob.

90 Andy McCarthy's take at The Corner: http://goo.gl/Hguy

91

When I look at the left, I get this weird sensation that I'm seeing the reason why so many civilizations have fallen into ruin throughout human history.  These people are a cancer on the body politic. 

-------------------------------------------------------------

I've been having that same sensation since the 2008 election.  I've become a big fan of Victor Davis Hanson and his historical take on events.  You look at these "Coffee Party" activists and realize those dummies are scarcely capable of walking to and from the coffee shop without help.  But those dummies are the vanguard of the truly dangerous people on the left.  The armed gangs in the inner cities.  Inner cities of every metropolitan area have been shooting galleries for decades now.  Once in awhile the perps go looking for trouble in nice neighborhoods & the SHTF, but when they stay in their own 'hoods it's easy for the rest of us to ignore them.

I know everybody on the right thinks that only those on the right have guns and know how to use them, but the left has PLENTY of gunpower muscle.  And it's all exactly where Bill Ayers knew it would be, in the black & minority communities.  He's been wanting a race war since the sixties, when he figured out that his fellow well-fed liberals had no genuine interest in revolution.  But the Black Panthers were up for it.

92 Seriously I don't think there is any specimen the Angry Left hates more than a successful, conservative black person.  Truly independent thought drives them insane.

93 This picture would make a great ad for Coke.

94

44  The bastard won't chance an actual, open confrontation with the military (or SCOTUS imho); what will happen is he will pick, pick, pick at ways to undermine and discredit both while actively working to create structures that do the same jobs (or nearly the same, rather) they do, or actively work to create hyper-partisan organizations out of both.  Either way, not a good outcome.

The military and SCOTUS do need to stay (or at least give the strong appearance of being) politically neutral -- what is happening, imho, is a steady attempt to make them, force them even, to be not so (or appear not so) in order to "remake" them.

And yes, the left has plenty of firepower on their side -- the limp wristed ones are going to count heavily on the "lower classes" that they have been pandering to do their dirty work, while they sit back and sip lattes...and talk.  Eventually, they'll get caught up in their own trap:  those same people do not love them as much as they like to think -- there is no loyalty there.  Hmm, perhaps the reason why every socialist state has ended in ruin for all concerned; only the criminals come out ahead.

95 As a matter of fact, there is no love whatsoever from the "lower classes" to their betters in LLL (liberal latte land).  Listen to Jeremiah Wright or Louis Farrakhan for a few minutes.  If things break out, the first victims will be in gentrified liberal neighborhoods close to inner cities. 

96

95  Considering the pig sty conditions most of the LLL have foisted upon the "lower classes" (and that would be the LLL's term, not mine) with their "great societies", I'm not so sure I would blame them.

Reap what you sow, after all.

97 GOD BLESS HER! We need all the reinforcements we can get!

98 Concern? If you could write the word concern on every grain of sand in The Sahara Desert and then multiply that x 2, you wouldn't even come close as to how concerned I am.

99

Two fabulous Americans.  We better pray for a lot more like them if we're going to have a future of liberty.

100

Okay, I am now officially a deflowered AOSHQ commenter.

Virginia Lamp-Thomas is quite a looker, IMO.  And conservative to boot.  Sounds like Justice Thomas got quite a deal.  I wish them both God's blessings and good luck in all their future endeavors.

101

skechers shape ups shoes under sales promotion, all the shape up shoes are sold nearly at its cost and free shipping. It is really high quality and cheap.wholesale mlb jerseys wholesale mlb jerseys

102

Stuff I didnÂ’t know but feel like sharing nonetheless:

 

Clarence Thomas calls his grandfather "the greatest man I have ever known."  When Thomas was 10, his grandfather started taking the family to help at a farm every day from sunrise to sunset, His grandfather believed in hard work and self-reliance; he would counsel Thomas to "never let the sun catch you in bed."  

 

Thomas was the only black person at his high school in Savannah, where he was an honor student.

 

In 1975, when Thomas read Race and Economics by economist Thomas Sowell, he found an intellectual foundation for this philosophy.  The book criticized social reforms by government and instead argued for individual action to overcome circumstances and adversity. He was also influenced by Ayn Rand, particularly The Fountainhead, and would later require his staffers to watch the 1949 film version.

 

In 1994, Thomas performed the wedding ceremony for radio host Rush Limbaugh and his wife, Marta Fitzgerald.

 

Thomas was listed among “21 Black Folks WeÂ’d Like To Remove From Black History” on The Root blog, owned by the Washington Post.  Others on the list were Idi Amin, Flavor Flav, D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammad and O.J. Simpson.

Ginni Thomas grew up in Omaha, the youngest of four children. Her parents, Donald and Marjorie Lamp, were upper-middle-class Republican Party insiders who stressed family and religion at home.

Ginni loved visiting her uncle's farm in Iowa, where she could drive the family tractor. But she was no corn husker. In high school she showed her proclivity for politics, wowing teachers and her classmates in student government, the debate club and the teenage Republican club.

In a 1986 Good Housekeeping article that named the 29 year old Virginia Lamp as one of "28 Young Women of Promise," Lamp said that her ultimate goal was to run for Congress. Her biggest obstacle, however, was "finding a husband who'll be supportive of a woman in public life."

103 The concern is quite ammusing. For seventy five years the SC has been used as a political tool by the left. Roosevelt packed the court to uphold his take over of the economy in '34?? Now a conservative wife of a SC Justice uses her right to free speech and numerous individuals pitch a fit. If we are to survive as a free nation conservatives at all levels are duty bound to express thier opinions. As for Alito's response to barry's verbal assault, thank god for SC justices with spine. All of the SC's should have walked out on the State of the Union pep rally when barry assailed their decision.

104 @ 91

The race war that Ayers wanted will never come because race is no longer the factor it once was.  It still is for the left of course.  They're always working day and night to encourage Americans to look at other Americans as being different from themselves based upon superficial distinctions.

The truth is that there is no such thing as race.  The characteristics that are commonly used to pidgeonhole people into various categories are nothing more than an accident of geographic separation.  In the centuries to come racial distinctions will fade away as people whose ancestors were separated by seas and continents come together and have children.  This has happened at least once already.  The vast differences in eye and hair color found in Europeans (usually within the same family) are the result of commingling of once distinct bloodlines within Europe itself.

105 Wow some people with there comment, to say such things show how brain wached by the left.  Maybe they should seek to be to be more informed and not so close minded

106 I love your post ...
Support me at here ...

hire me | content link sales | link sale network

107

ãäÊÏì ÇáÇÝáÇã ÇáÇÌäÈíÉ

http://krwetatnt.net/vb/f106/

108 laptop battery
laptop ac adapter
hermes handbag

109 link

110 —ð—

111 Do you have a spam problem on this site; I also am a blogger, and I was wanting to know your situation; many of us have created some nice practices and we are looking to swap solutions with others, be sure to shoot me an email if interested.