That Was The Week That Was — disturbing; I suggest the flamingo decapitators and Mum-snuffing Scot be sentenced to eat every lick of the bathtub cheese.
Also — McCain’s choice of ABBA as backdrop for democracy qualifies as a national emergency … do ANYTHING to beat him back!
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!
Jude
HARPER’S WEEKLY REVIEW
October 30, 2007
Wildfires spread from north of Los Angeles to south of San
Diego, killing at least seven people, consuming more than
1,800 homes, burning a half-million acres, setting Camp
Pendleton afire, forcing about 300,000 San Diego residents
to evacuate, and prompting California Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger to declare seven counties disaster areas
and to mobilize the National Guard. At the Qualcomm
Stadium in San Diego, typically home to the Chargers but a
place of refuge for 20,000 evacuees during the fires, an
air-conditioned medical tent was erected, a cell-phone
provider offered free calls to anywhere in the United
States, volunteers distributed coloring books and crayons
to children, coolers brimmed with cold sodas, residents
piled sandwich meat onto bread, and a massage therapist
and acupuncturist set up shop. FEMA apologized for holding
a fake press conference on the wildfires, with FEMA
staffers posing as reporters. “Are you happy with FEMA’s
response so far?” asked one fake reporter. “I’m very
happy,” said Deputy Administrator Harvey Johnson, “with
FEMA’s response so far.” The Government Accountability
Office reported that more than 755,000 names now appear on
the U.S. terrorist watch list. Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan asked the United States for military
help with the Kurdish rebel group PKK. “We have a
disturbance,” said Erdogan. “What kind of disturbance did
the United States have with Iraq?” President George
W. Bush phoned Turkish President Abdullah Gul to tell him
that the United States was willing to bomb PKK
strongholds. “It’s not ‘Kumbaya’ time any more,” said an
official familiar with the conversation. A DNA study
revealed that some Neanderthals were redheads.
Harry Potter creator J.K. Rowling revealed that Dumbledore
was a gay wizard. “It’s been terrible,” said an English
father of five who was teased by coworkers because of the
$1,200, two-foot-tall Dumbledore tattoo on his
back. Defense Minister Lee Tien-yu scrapped the Taiwanese
military’s “loving hug” policy, which required squad
leaders to embrace new recruits and say, “Brother, I will
take care of you” (to which recruits respond by saying,
“Leader, I respect and love you”). Lee canceled the policy
after a lawmaker who thought the policy was inappropriate
insisted the Defense Minister accept a hug; “We are not
that close,” said Lee. The $5-million African Leadership
Prize, an award designed to encourage good governance in
Africa, was awarded to former Mozambique president Joaquim
Chissano, who ruled his country for 18 years before
stepping down in 2005. “Those who govern badly,” said an
analyst at the South African Institute of International
Affairs, “bag a lot more than $5 million.” The Sudanese
government announced a unilateral cease-fire in Darfur
during peace talks hosted by Libyan leader Colonel Muammar
el-Qaddafi, who spoke about the Rodney King riots in Los
Angeles before concluding that other countries should not
interfere in Darfur. The state of Georgia had less than 80
days of stored water left. Governor Sonny Perdue banned
the washing of state vehicles, ordered inmates to take no
more than one shower a day, and insisted that state
departments use paper plates at least once a week. At a
high-security auction in Texas, a bookstore owner paid
$100,000 for a lock of Che Guevara’s hair.
Senator John McCain promised workers at Thompson Center
Arms, a small-weapons factory in Rochester, New Hampshire,
that he would “follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of
hell” and “shoot him with your products.” McCain also
promised that if he were elected “the background music
would be ABBA in the elevators all over the White House”
and proposed “Take a Chance on Me” as his campaign
song. Elvis Costello sang to Hillary Clinton at her 60th
birthday party, and a still-living 405-year-old quahog
clam was found near Iceland. The warming climate of
Greenland meant that for the the first time locally grown
cauliflower, broccoli, and cabbage could be sold in local
supermarkets. General Motors announced it would open a new
research center into alternative fuels and vehicles in
Shanghai, and a Scottish man was placed on a sex offenders
registry for raping a bicycle. Another Scottish man was
sentenced to five years in jail for smothering his
76-year-old mother with a pillow not long after she told
him he was a failure who could not even kill himself
properly. “I woke up,” the man told police, “and just
decided to do it.” A New Zealand woman died while nursing
her baby son; the child was smothered by her corpse. A
couple in southern California was facing criminal charges
for attempting to sell 375 pounds of bathtub cheese, an
attack on the Frankfurt zoo left three flamingos
decapitated and a fourth strangled, and in Florida one
18-year-old stabbed another after a squabble at the mullet
festival.
– Claire Gutierrez
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/10/WeeklyReview2007-10-30
“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
almondnet http credit remortgage adverseprograms anethesia nurse accreditedabft cost accreditationabnb credit unionacr accreditation phantom ctprocessingcom merchant washington account card creditalpena alcona credit unionpra credits 1 ama category Maphogtied moviesmovies farm ant alientitty fucking moviesscenes movie nudebig movies titsvega mindy moviefull movies pornmovies big cock Map
October 31st, 2007
So today … as happens at least once or twice a week … we are assaulted by another dark secret that comes oozing out from under the door at 1600 Pennsylvania — turns out the mercenaries in Iraq had immunity even while our Congress was turning to look at them and their ties to the administration.
Bush “decided.”
Rule of Law: up yours.
This isn’t America any more … I’m not sure what it is exactly; whatever it was becoming a year ago is no longer the path its taking and that’s some solace — but for absolute sure, when the government doesn’t even PRETEND to take law seriously … it’s not yer Daddy’s America.
This post tells us about the newest iteration of Ashcroft, of Fredo, proposed by the Decider — Mukasey, who looked pretty shiny for a day or two and then caved on unitary power, torture and presidential privilege.
Well, hell — we knew Bush wouldn’t nominate somebody who disagreed with him on the important stuff. It’s Kabuki when everybody approaches a vetting such as this with any hope that it will be different. Within mere months of the “Bush Experience,” we knew he wasn’t going to back up on anything … ever. Pretending it might happen is a mere nod toward saner times and nostalgia for the good old days [anything pre-2000.]
And HOORAY for Chris Dodd [I like him better by the day] for pushing back on this, for refusing to whitewash Mukasey just because he doesn’t have the obvious flaws of the last two.
Here are the reads — and the question at hand? Is this “new America,” defined by the world as a band of organized thugs, destined to remain so? Will we torture and kidnap and allow the executive branch to ignore the law? Will we accept another AG that leans toward Bush rather than the Constitution?
And why is it that a third-tier presidential candidate … one without the money or machine to take him to the top … had to lead the way on this? That’s MY question. At least … today.
Jude
Honey, They Shrunk the Congress
ADAM COHEN, NYT
October 30, 2007
President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, was asked an important question about Congress’s power at his confirmation hearing. If witnesses claim executive privilege and refuse to respond to Congressional subpoenas in the United States attorneys scandal — as Karl Rove and Harriet Miers have done — and Congress holds them in contempt, would his Justice Department refer the matter to a grand jury for criminal prosecution, as federal law requires?
Mr. Mukasey suggested the answer would be no. That was hardly his only slap-down of Congress. He made the startling claim that a president can defy laws if he or she is acting within the authority “to defend the country.” That is a mighty large exception to the rule that Congress’s laws are supreme.
The founders wanted the “people’s branch” to be strong, but the Bush administration has usurped a frightening number of Congress’s powers — with very little resistance. The question is whether members of Congress of both parties will do anything about it.
Congress is often described as one of three coequal branches, but that is not entirely true. As Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor, observed in “America’s Constitution: a Biography,” Article I actually makes Congress “first among equals, with wide power to structure the second-mentioned executive and third-mentioned judicial branches.”
Article I, which describes Congress’s powers, is the Constitution’s first, longest and most generously worded article. It gives Congress a wide array of specific powers, but also broad authority to pass laws that bring to life “all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
It would be hard to recognize that powerful Congress today. In part, that is because Congress has been unwilling or unable to enact laws on the most important issues facing the nation — Iraq, immigration reform, health care.
Just as troubling, though, is how it has allowed its institutional power to erode.
President Bush has regularly issued signing statements — including on critical issues like the ban on torture — that assert his right to ignore new laws at the same time as he signs them. These signing statements are not just talk. A report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office states that in nearly one-third of the cases it looked at, after President Bush issued a signing statement objecting to a provision of a new law, his administration did not implement it as written.
The Senate has routinely confirmed judicial nominees who make no secret of their belief that the president’s power should be sweeping, and Congress’s sharply cut back.
The Senate confirmed Jeffrey Sutton to a federal appeals court judgeship even though Patrick Leahy, now the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, observed that as a lawyer Mr. Sutton “aggressively sought out cases to limit the power of Congress to enact laws protecting individual rights.” It confirmed Janice Rogers Brown to the powerful United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit even though she had suggested that much of the legislation passed during the New Deal — including the Social Security Act — was unconstitutional.
There are things Congress can do. It can start by speaking out about the importance of Congressional power the way the administration has talked about deferring to the commander in chief. Congress should pass laws that support its own power — like a bipartisan one that Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, has introduced to nullify the impact of signing statements.
The Senate should refuse to confirm nominees who do not take Congressional power seriously. And Congress should make clear that if the executive branch will not enforce its subpoenas, it will use its own “inherent contempt” powers to do so.
Right now, standing up for Congress may appeal more to Democrats than Republicans. The issue of reining in presidential power is beginning to gain traction among conservatives, however, as they contemplate the possibility of a Democrat — particularly Hillary Clinton — as president.
Defending Congressional authority should not be a partisan issue. The founders wanted a strong Congress because they understood the importance of ensuring that the most democratic branch have a strong say in how the nation is run.
Mukasey’s testimony raises question: Is the president above the law?
DAN RATHER, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
October 25, 2007
It’s time we had a conversation, in America, about just what kind of country we want to be. Some might say that this is what election campaigns are for, particularly presidential election campaigns, and might point out that we are in the middle of just such a “conversation” now.
But while campaigns might be useful for sorting out stands on specific issues — health care, Iraq, the environment — the sad truth may be that there are some things that are too big, too important, too fundamental to be left to the narrow range of debate available to and chosen by today’s focus-grouped, risk-nothing candidates.
Things such as whether we want to continue to have, as John Adams put it, “a government of laws and not of men” (to which we can now add “or women”) and whether that principle has already been endangered or turned on its head.
It is telling that, in the confirmation hearings for President Bush’s attorney general nominee, retired federal Judge Michael Mukasey, the focus — in questioning and in the media — has been on the use of torture and whether the interrogation tactic known as “waterboarding” still constitutes torture, as the United States once held.
It is telling because this is an issue. And, much as happens in an election campaign, issues can be finessed. Is torture illegal? Yes, Mukasey told the senators. Is waterboarding torture? “I don’t know what is involved in the technique,” Mukasey told the senators.
What has received far less attention is something else that Mukasey said in the hearings, that the question of whether the president would have to obey a federal statute “would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country.” This is not an issue; it is a matter of bedrock belief about what we mean when we say we live in the United States of America, a constitutional republic.
Of course, even bedrock principles can be, if not finessed, confused and muddled. One of the few observers to call attention to this bit of testimony in the past week was a Yale law professor, Jed Rubenfeld, who wrote a New York Times Op-Ed decrying what he sees in Mukasey’s statement as a fundamental usurpation of the notion that, in America, no one stands above the law. In certain precincts of the Internet, bloggers have argued that Mukasey was not saying that the president is above the law, but rather that the Constitution — at the core of the law — may give the president powers (specifically national-security powers supposedly embedded in the “commander in chief” clause) that supersede federal statutes that may say otherwise.
Either way you look at it, though, the question remains the same: Is the president, any president, bound by the laws of the land, or does he or she have the power by virtue of his or her office to disobey the laws at will in the name of what a president and a president’s lawyers can justify as “national security” concerns?
If you agree with the way this president wields his presumed commander-in-chief authority, you might want to ask yourself how you will feel when another president assumes these same alleged powers. You might want to further ask yourself how you feel about this in the midst of a declared and all-encompassing “War on Terror” that we are told will endure for generations.
Because this is not a partisan issue. In fact, it’s not an issue at all. It’s something that gets to the beating heart of what kind of country we want to live in, and what kind of country we live in today.
Dan Rather is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers.
So Mukasey Doesn’t Know If Waterboarding Is Torture?
Please.
Joyce Appleby, History News Network
10-29-07
The United States Senate at last has an opportunity to take a principled stand on the government’s use of torture. The Senators should seize it. Pressed in hearings last week to say if “waterboarding” were constitutional, Michael Mukasey, President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, evaded the question. Refusing to approve Mukasey’s nomination would signal to Americans and the world that the continued equivocation on whether or not America tortures its prisoners must end.
The Bush administration has consistently denied that American interrogators have used torture to extract information from its detainees. Yet just as consistently secret memos and eye witness accounts have indicated that the C.I.A. has used various “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Among those most often mentioned are sleep deprivation and water-boarding. Torturing the truth as well, White House spokespersons routinely reply to questions about these techniques with the blanket assertion, “we don’t torture.”
Unhappily Mukasey, a distinguished New York judge, joined the chorus of evasion before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Friday. Asked by Rhode Island Senator Shelton Whitehouse about the constitutionality of waterboarding, Mukasey said that he didn’t know what was involved in that technique. After Senator Whitehouse detailed how victims of waterboarding were made to think they were drowning, Judge Mukasey non-commitally repeated that if it was torture it was unconstitutional.
Senator John McCain, who was tortured when a prisoner during the Vietnam War, has no trouble calling waterboarding “very exquisite torture.” Senator McCain is the most vocal opponent of the government’s shifting stance on interrogation techniques. Evoking his five years of captivity, he has repeatedly told audiences how he comforted himself with the knowledge that his government did not do the awful things his captors did.
Waterboarding has the kind of history you would expect. Used during the Inquisition to extract confessions, it reappeared in the 2nd World War when Japanese and Germans tortured their prisoners. More recently it has been associated with the Khmer Rouge.
Anti-terrorists hawks like Vice President Richard Cheney sanction waterboarding as a “no-brainer” if information gained could save American lives. This ends-justifies-the- means rationale neatly ignores the fact that among our detainees are dozens of innocent people swept up in raids on suspected terrorists.
Many experts have stressed the ineffectiveness of torture in gaining critical information. Victims of torture will say almost anything to stop their pain. Others have pointed to the threat our use of torture poses for future American prisoners of war.
Most important, torture is wrong. Most people feel this. If their government does it, they’d rather not know. But this convenient ignorance won’t help us now. We are choosing someone to head our Justice Department at a time when justifications for torture figure prominently in the ethical lapses that must be righted in that department.
Accepting torture as another casualty in the war against terrorists is to give up on the ideals we cherish as Americans. The torture issue is promoting fatalism, cynicism, and despair, all toxic corrosives of our national spirit.
It’s hard to tell from his testimony whether Judge Mukasey suffers from a lack of courage or of candor. But he can longer plead ignorance, for the ten Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have just sent him a detailed description of waterboarding along with the question: Is the use of waterboarding, or inducing the misperception of drowning, as an interrogation technique illegal under U.S. law, including treaty obligations?
Despite this encouraging display of support for American principles, they and their senate colleagues still seem predisposed to approve of the Mukasey’s nomination when they should be sending a clear signal that the government’s use of torture is unacceptable and that no candidate for the highest law enforcement post in the country can be approved without categorically disavowing the legitimacy of known torture techniques. But they probably won’t until they hear from us.
Ms. Appleby is professor of history emeritus, UCLA, and a past president of the American Historical Association.
Dodd Declares He Won’t Support Mukasey, Fellow Democrats Follow His Lead
“That is about as basic as it gets,” Dodd said. “You must obey the law. Everyone must.”
Marc Cooper, Alternet
October 30, 2007
This post, written by Marc Cooper, originally appeared on The Huffington Post
Kudos to Chris Dodd whose third-tier-nothing-to-lose presidential campaign has sprouted him a robust pair of cojones. Dodd became the most prominent Democrat, and the first among the presidential candidates, to declare he will vote against Bush nominee Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General.
Angered by Mukasey’s Senate testimony last week in which the former federal judge and prosecutor floated a legal “theory” that the President of the United States could, indeed, stand above constitutional statutes, Dodd declared on Monday:
“That is about as basic as it gets,” Dodd said. “You must obey the law. Everyone must.”
Dodd, along with a slew of other legal and political observers were also dismayed when Mukasey dodged Senators’ questions last week about whether or not so-called waterboarding was, in fact, a form of torture. After eluding any straight answer, Mukasey wound up making the incredulous statement that he wasn’t quite sure what was meant by the term.
Over the weekend, some leading Senate Democrats ranging from Dianne Feinstein of California to Carl Levin of Michigan engaged in their own form of equivocation, warning they might vote against Mukasey if he doesn’t properly clarify his views when he responds to written questions from the Senate later this week.
But Dodd’s bold stepping-out on this issue, rejecting any mulligan for a nominee who refuses to call torture by its proper name, seems like it might force the hand of fellow Democrats who might start looking rather silly if they don’t turn thumbs down on the newly proposed AG. Within hours of Dodd’s statement, fellow candidate and Delaware Senator Joe Biden also said he had made up his mind to vote nay. Campaign spokesmen for John Edwards and Bill Richardson also joined the chorus. And by late Monday night, the campaign of Barack Obama piled on, telling The New York Sun:
“Judge Mukasey has failed to send a clear signal that he understands the legal and moral issues that are at stake for our country, and so I cannot support him.” Mr. Obama said even a clarification from Judge Mukasey would be insufficient. “No nominee for attorney general should need a second chance to oppose torture and the unnecessary violation of civil liberties,” he said.
After this barrage, Mukasey’s nomination might be dead in the water — if you’ll excuse the pun.
Squeezing Mukasey on Torture
MASSIMO CALABRESI, Time Magazine
Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2007
WASHINGTON - George W. Bush has always wielded moral clarity as a weapon, beating Democrats by declaring his high purpose and principled resolve. But in recent months, as critics have shined new light on domestic spying and harsh interrogation techniques in the morally ambiguous world of counter-terrorism, Bush has had to retreat to gray-area defenses, using tailored definitions and legalisms to dodge questioners. And now, as Democrats raise the pressure on embattled Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey to state his opinion on whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture, it is the president’s opponents who are using moral clarity against him.
Mukasey’s (and the White House’s) problems began during his Oct. 18 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General.
At the hearing veteran Illinois Senator Dick Durbin asked Mukasey a deceptively simple question: is waterboarding torture? Waterboarding simulates drowning, and involves constraining a person, restricting their breathing and pouring water on all or part of their face. Some version of it is widely reported to have been used by U.S. interrogators in an attempt to extract information from high-level terrorism suspects in the wake of 9/11.
It is also widely labeled as a form of torture by current and former U.S. military leaders, human rights organizations worldwide and prominent Republicans, including Presidential candidate John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham. Torture is illegal in the United States, and Bush and the administration have repeatedly asserted that they have not and do not torture. But Bush has declined to define torture, and Durbin’s question cut to the core of that obfuscation.
Mukasey at first declined specifically to declare waterboarding torture, saying, “I think it would be irresponsible of me to discuss particular techniques with which I am not familiar when there are people who are using coercive techniques and who are being authorized to use coercive techniques. And for me to say something that is going to put their careers or freedom at risk simply because I want to be congenial, I don’t think it would be responsible of me to do that.” Durbin pressed on, citing cases where Americans and foreigners alike have been prosecuted and convicted for waterboarding. Finally Mukasey said, “It is not constitutional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else.”
That is about as strong a statement as one is likely to get from a nominee under the circumstances and should have been enough to satisfy Democrats. But their goal is not simply to get Mukasey on the record with regard to waterboarding but publicly to corner Bush and the administration on torture. So, in an uncharacteristically savvy national security play, Durbin drafted a letter to Mukasey asking him to state — or rather, to restate — that waterboarding is torture and therefore illegal.
Until he came up against that question, Mukasey had been a shoe-in to replace Gonzales. But now Mukasey and the administration are in trouble. Within hours of circulating his letter among Judiciary committee colleagues, Durbin had all the Democrats as co-signers. The next day the Committee’s ranking Republican, Arlen Specter, also asked Mukasey to clarify his position. Over this last weekend, both Senators Graham and McCain denounced waterboarding and called on Mukasey to do the same. Democratic Presidential contender Chris Dodd has said he’ll vote against Mukasey if he doesn’t denounce waterboarding, upping the pressure on the other candidates with votes on the issue, Senators Clinton, Obama and Biden.
No one will have a fixed count of votes until Mukasey responds to Durbin, but if he refuses to declare waterboarding expressly illegal, he looks likely to be rejected by the Judiciary committee. On the other hand, if he does declare it illegal, he may be rendering a legal judgment on everyone who authorized waterboarding or used it in interrogation. “They are putting him in an almost untenable position on this,” says White House spokesman Tony Fratto. The White House expects Mukasey’s response will be sent to the committee Tuesday or Wednesday, and Fratto says, “He’ll respond in his usual manner, which is thoughtful and thorough, but there are certain things that he will not be able to comment on.”
Some Democrats on the committee have tried to help Mukasey get out of the box he’s in. Harold Kim, a former Specter staffer who works in the White House Counsel’s office, has been negotiating with Judiciary Committee Democrats, trying to find language they can live with. But attempts to compromise with Congress have met resistance from Cheney’s office, and when it comes to interrogation techniques, the Vice President and his chief of staff, David Addington, have notoriously pushed for Presidential authority to go unchecked by the legislative branch.
In the public sphere, though, waterboarding is not about legalisms but about moral clarity. Cheney famously responded to a question about a “dunk in the water” for terrorism suspects by saying that to him it was a no-brainer that it was an acceptable interrogation technique. McCain, who was tortured as a POW in Vietnam, sees the issue differently. He told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Sunday, “Anyone who says they don’t know if water boarding is torture or not has no experience in the conduct of warfare and national security. This is a fundamental about America. It isn’t about an interrogation technique. It isn’t about whether someone is really harmed or not. It’s about what kind of a nation we are. We are a nation that takes the moral high ground. If we engage in a practice that was invented in the Spanish inquisition, which was used by Pol Pot in Cambodia in that great genocide, is now being used on Buddhist monks in Burma, and we’re going to be the same as that? How do we keep the moral high ground in the world? I would never use that, and find some other practices.”
Turning waterboarding into a litmus test on torture is a morally clear, politically savvy move by the Democrats, but it is not without its own risks. If Mukasey comes back with a general condemnation of torture, but declines specifically to declare waterboarding illegal, Democrats will then have the burden of moral clarity on them. Will they reject Mukasey on the moral absolute of torture, or will they quietly abandon the moral high ground in the interest of getting a competent hand on the wheel at the demoralized Justice Department? Before this is over, George Bush may not be the only one to learn that moral clarity can be a double-edged sword.
“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Bilder Vagina Transsexuellexxx reife ClitsGrandpa junges Mädchen fuckingReifen Tochter Mutter undNud Frauen molligRingen Behaarte MädchenRussisch Mädchen loltia nacktSex Videos Anker Hotel Map
October 30th, 2007
