Weekly Update for Elected Officials: Halloween Edition

OVERHEARD RADIO BROADCAST MCCAIN/PALIN 08-

McCain: “ We’re going down in flames again! Look for a place to crash this wagon! “

Palin: “ Eject Johnny Eject!! And stop by WalMart and I’ll go in and get you some depends before you run this jalopy into the ground somewhere. “

McCain: “ I never should have picked you Sarah, your too bimbolicious to be a maverick! “

Palin: “ Thanks for the ride you old kook, James Dobson was right to step on your face! “

McCain: “ You try eating Vietnamese every day for 5 years you slut! “

Palin: “ Stop whining and and tell everybody you thought it was 170 to get elected, they’ll believe that. “

McCain: “ I can do that math you heretic queen, graduated 894th out of a class of 899 at Annapolis. “

Palin: “ Oh great! Tell everyone you are a nickle better than Bush, just what am I supposed to do now Johnny, go on dancing with the stars?! “

McCain: “ You will be the new leader of whatever is left of the Republican party, aren’t you the one with God and prayer and all that TransCanada sister act? “

Palin: “ Look!! It’s Larry’s house of self-delusion and desperation, put it on automatic to crash into his place, he will never know the difference. “

McCain: “ Roger that, 702 SW 8th Street it is. Here’s to you Major Kong!! “

Revisiting the War Tax
by: Brandon Friedman
Fri Oct 31, 2008
I had a conversation this week with one of my Army buddies from Iraq.  He brought up the fact that a friend of his made $300,000 a year and was worried that an Obama administration would cost his [HIGH INCOME]family extra in new taxes.  I’m not sure how the math works out on that, but I took it as a complaint.  And this is where I begin to have a problem.
It’s no secret that lots of Americans feel as though they’re entitled to wage as many wars as they want without having to pay a price for it.  We know who these parasites are, and we know who they’re voting for on Tuesday.  I didn’t ask my buddy the question, but given that less than one percent of Americans are currently serving in the military, I assumed his wealthy friend had NO skin in the game.  And this brings me back to the eternal question: Why are those in uniform the ONLY ones being asked to sacrifice something (along with their families) in the prosecution these wars? 

We’re approaching 5,000 American deaths in wars that are going to cost around $2 trillion, if not more.  Given those facts, it’s OBSCENE that millions of people choose to whine about taxation, while they sit back and support NOT ONLY the war, BUT also those politicians who would both extend the wars and attempt to lower taxes.  George W. Bush summed up this mentality when he told everyone to go shopping after 9/11 as a method of fighting terrorism.

So I want to emphasize this point: A sizeable portion of the American population supports politicians who advocate for war and more war, while at the same time they complain about being taxed.  These same people who rail against government “handouts” for the poor, who abhor the idea of universal healthcare, and who cry “Socialism!” at Sarah Barracuda rallies, are the same ones who want their wars for free. 

I’m afraid it doesn’t work that way.~~~~~~~~~~~

I thought this was a Walmart site.

I thought this was a Walmart site.

Rick in

What are you, some kind of nut?

Sarah,

I wish you would stop referring to our campaign as a ‘napalm sandwich’ for the Republican party.

Ex-CIA Expert: Obama Took Millions in Illegal Foreign Donations

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

A Newsmax investigation of Obama/Biden campaign contributors, undertaken in conjunction with a private investigative firm headed by a former CIA operations officer, has identified 118 donors who appear to lack U.S. citizenship.

Some of these “red flag” donors work for foreign governments; others have made public statements declaring that they are citizens of Cameroun, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, and other countries.

A Newsmax sampling of about 3,400 donors also found hundreds more who showed “yellow flags” such as not having used a Social Security number or a known U.S. address. Most U.S.-born citizens are issued Social Security numbers at birth or by the time they enter kindergarten.

Under federal law, only U.S. citizens or permanent residents may donate to federal political campaigns. It is illegal for the campaigns to accept money knowingly from foreign donors.

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill of 2002 placed new restrictions on political fundraising after the scandals of 1996, when the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign was exposed for having taken millions of dollars of unregulated soft money from donors with ties to Chinese military intelligence.

But even with the new laws, it remains very difficult to identify with any precision foreign money if a campaign itself does not cooperate with the Federal Election Commission and perform its own due diligence.

Until very recently, the Obama campaign had no safeguards in its online fundraising Web site designed to weed out foreign donors. Instead, its operations appeared to be designed specifically to enhance the flow of illegal money.

The Newsmax investigation focused only on donors whose names the Obama campaign disclosed, which are available to public scrutiny through the Federal Election Commission Web site.

In addition to the donations the campaign has disclosed, however, it has taken an unprecedented $218 million from donors whose names it is keeping secret, according to FEC spokesman Robert Biersack.

That money came from individuals who in theory never passed the threshold of $200, the limit the FEC set for public disclosure of a donor’s name and place of residence, so there is no way of knowing how much foreign money could be included in that amount.

For example, hidden away amidst the unprecedented $150 million Obama claims to have raised from individual donors in September was more than $42 million raised from secret donors. These donations appear in the records as a single entry under the heading, “Donors, Unitemized.”

Newsmax retained the services of former CIA operations officer Frederick W. Rustmann Jr. and a team of international forensic accounting experts to comb through Obama’s donor list to identify those who apparently aren’t U.S. citizens or residents. Rustmann, a 24 year veteran field officer, operates CTC International Group Ltd., a West Palm Beach, Fla., firm that provides business intelligence services and analysis.

Using sophisticated Internet search tools, fee-based data bases, and other public records, CTC attempted to identify Social Security numbers and U.S. addresses connected to the Obama donors. Most of these donors gave obvious overseas addresses when they made their donations, but the Obama campaign had no security screen to detect them.

“Hillary and McCain demanded proof of citizenship of all their donors,” Rustmann said. “Obama did not, so he benefitted by receiving an enormous amount of money from foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process.”

Rustmann and his investigative team expressed “high suspicions” that 118 donors flagged as “red” were not U.S. citizens.

“That’s all we can say for certain, because it’s difficult to prove citizenship with no database that lists citizens,” Rustmann said.

Typical is Victor A. of Lagos, Nigeria, who gave $500 to the campaign in May. In the FEC database, his address is listed as Ikoyi, NA. But a closer look at the actual itemized receipts filed by the campaign shows that he declared his address as 9e Awori Street Dolphin Estate, Lagos, Nigeria.

That apparently slipped by the eagle eyes of the Obama campaign’s finance team.

A survey of the Obama donor base returns 8,794 donations from individuals who gave their state as “NA.” They included donors from Bangalore, India; London; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Lagos, Nigeria; and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Thousands more gave state abbreviations that, combined with the city addresses they listed, clearly referred to foreign countries. Examples include IT (Italy), FR (France), GR (Greece), NZ (New Zealand), JP (Japan), GA (Gaza).
cont

Another 2,372 donors gave their state of residence as “ZZ,” with cities including Moscow, Barcelona, Beirut, London, Lausanne, Singapore, Hagatna, Gunma-Ken, Buelach, Shanghai, Geneva, Prague, Aichi-Gun, Kiev, Hong Kong, and others.

The Obama campaign claims that these donors with overseas addresses are Americans living abroad, but there is no way of knowing that for certain because the campaign has not systematically required proof of citizenship from overseas donors.

The pace of foreign donations and other questionable fundraising practices has increased during the past few weeks, even as Obama campaign spokesmen say they have closed loopholes on their Web site and changed the credit-card authorization procedures that have allowed such donations. The Federal Election Commission had flagged 16,639 potential foreign donations as of Oct. 21 that brought in $5,249,263.96 to the campaign.

Take the case of Jo Jacquet, who gave $23,065 to Obama in 23 separate contributions last month. CTC found three people with variations of the name “Jo Anna Jacquet” who had U.S. addresses and Social Security numbers. It is not clear whether this specific Obama donor is a U.S. citizen.

“Jo Jacquet” made all of her contributions on two days, alternating between $5 and $2,300 charges to a credit card.

On all of the donations, she gave her employer as “DFDFGDFG,” and her profession as “DFGDFGDFGHFGH.” None of this attracted the suspicions of the Obama campaign or of Chase Paymentech, the company that processes the Obama campaign’s credit card donations.

The FEC requested that the Obama campaign re-attribute or re-designate all of the money from “Jo Jacquet” that went beyond the $4,600 limit but did not require that it be refunded. Under campaign finance rules, the campaign can shift this money into the “Obama Victory” account, a joint fundraising committee with much higher individual limits that it operates with the Democratic National Committee.

One apparent reason for the unusual number of foreign donors who may not hold U.S. citizenship is the fact the Obama campaign turned off the security features most merchants demand for customers when doing online transactions, such as verifying the card number against the cardholder’s name and billing address.

Another major loophole is the apparent widespread use of gift cards, which notoriously have been used for money-laundering purposes, especially in places such as Russia and Ukraine, industry security analysts tell Newsmax.

Newsmax asked James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, who was responsible for taking the unusual step of deactivating the Address Verification Service recommended by VISA USA on the Obama Web site. Such security features can be deactivated by the processing company, or at the request of the merchant, in this case, Obama for America.

Wester said that Paymentech was “not going to be issuing a statement at this time.”

VISA USA has a series of verification tools it recommends to online merchants to prevent online credit card fraud and to guarantee the security of personal credit-card information.

“Fraudsters have been known to test credit card numbers by making online donations to charitable organizations,” a credit-card industry insider told Newsmax, on condition of anonymity.

In fact, by operating as a “high-risk merchant,” the Obama campaign could put both its donors and Chase Paymentech at risk, he said.

“A legitimate online merchant or charity would call in the Secret Service or the FBI” if it saw the high fraud rates that have appeared on the Obama campaign Web site.

“If they are not taking basic security safeguards to prevent such obvious online fraud as you have found, then how can any donor have confidence that they will protect credit card information? But if cash flow is the name of the game, it doesn’t matter as long as they get the money up-front and get the job done. They can pay the fines later,” he added.

Following are a few of the individuals the Newsmax/CTC International investigation found of overseas donors. To demonstrate its compliance with FEC regulations, the Obama campaign should request proof that these individuals are, indeed, U.S. citizens;
cont

Nasser Z. of 187 Blvd Bineau in Paris-France, “NA,” made seven donations totaling $785. CTC found no record indicating U.S. citizenship. But on Nasser’s personal blog, he states that he is of Algerian origin and lives between Paris and Dubai. He also notes that he is not registered to vote in the United States and hints that he may be an adviser to the Obama campaign on Arab relations.

Salem H. gave $200 to the campaign in March 2008, listing a London address. He said he worked as a salesman for “Anaka,” No information was found either on Haffar or his company indicating U.S. citizenship.

Essomba H. made 11 donations totaling $265. Essomba gave an address in Lyon, “NA,” and said he was unemployed but working for “Association,” the French equivalent of a community organizer. CTC found that Essomba actually worked for PDT Associates Afrikespace et Oyenga, which showed him as living in Lyon, France. His personal blog states, “I’m a Cameroonian living in France” and notes that he is not registered to vote.

Gedewon (or Gideon) G. made 32 donations totaling $1,095. Although he lists his employer as “Filtom Design Services” and his residence as Toronto, Canada, CTC could find no company with that name. Gedewon frequently posts blogs to a Web site for expatriate Eritreans, where he often promotes Obama.

Mahamane M. gave $500 to the campaign and listed his address as Niamey, the capitol of the central African state of Niger. He listed his occupation as managing director of C.N.U.T. Niger. The Public Transport Users Council, CNUT is affiliated with the prime minister’s office. In an interview, Mahamane said he is particularly interested in developing transportation resources that will help bring Niger’s extensive uranium resources to market.

Gilles M. lives in Zurich and claims to be “founder and senior consultant” of 4?ME (sic) Image Consulting. Gilles made three donations to the campaign for a total of $240.39. The campaign found him suspicious enough to return one of them in July, but kept the rest. Under FEC rules, that will bring Gilles back into the shadows, since his aggregate contributions now total less than $200.

Stamen S. of Sofia, Bulgaria, lists his profession as “Mployer” and his employer as “Employer.” He has made ten donations totaling $170. CTC found no record indicating U.S. citizenship.

Francis B. . of La Creche, France, made three donations totaling $200. He is reported as being a medicine physician at Hospital-Niort and is listed. CTC found no verifiable record of U.S. citizenship.

Pedro M.,. who said he was a salesman for Intermundo in Prague, made two donations for a total of $900. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.

Sandeep M., . an investment manager at Clariden Leu, Kuesnacht, in Zurich, Switzerland, gave the maximum $2,300 allowed per election. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.

Marissa M., . a nurse living in Guatemala City, gave eight $25 donations. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.

Somine L. . declared that she worked at the French Ministry of Culture in Paris, and donated $100. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.

Although CTC had no way of accurately evaluating the real amount of foreign donations based on the survey they did for Newsmax, Rustmann said he believe that the anecdotal evidence was clear.

“In my opinion, from what I have seen here, millions of dollars came from illegal donations, because the Obama campaign did little to vet the donors,” Rustmann said.

An earlier Newsmax estimate, based on the unusual occurrence of unrounded contributions, which fundraising experts attributed to foreign currency donations, concluded that as much as $63 million could have come from foreign sources.

A veteran investigator with the Criminal Investigative Division of the U.S. Secret Service told Newsmax on Monday that most of the donor fraud Newsmax has identified could fly under the radar of federal investigators, unless the feds received a complaint from a victim of identify fraud.

Identify fraud certainly appeared to be the case when it came to the $174,800 donated in September in the name of Manchester, Mo., resident, Mary T. Biskup. A retired insurance manager, Biksup told The Washington Post that she never gave the money to the Obama campaign, and had checked her credit-card statements and couldn’t find any trace of a charge to her account.

“We’re not out a penny,” Biskup said. “I gather that someone has hacked into something using other people’s credit cards and putting my name on it.”

The credit-card industry often covers up identify fraud, such as apparently occurred with Biskup. Credit-card companies would rather swallow losses and chargebacks than admit to consumers that criminals have cracked their security systems, insiders tell Newsmax.

Great Post Larry- Couldnt agree more!

Larry Larry Larry
No one cares about your never ending cut and paste articles.

McCain Slams Obama for Breaking Donation Vow

Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:25 PM

By: David A. Patten Article Font Size

Sen. Barack Obama bought his eye-popping, prime-time TV extravaganza with $4 million and something else: “It was paid for with broken promises,” says Sen. John McCain.

McCain is slamming Obama for breaking pledges to abide by campaign finance reform and accept public financing for his campaign.

“When you’re watching this gauzy, feel-good commercial, just remember that it was paid for with broken promises,” McCain said Wednesday evening. “Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn’t mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn’t mean a thing.”

Obama’s campaign “is now being flooded with hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed and questionable donations,”McCain said.

Obama’s June flip-flop on financing drew sharp criticism from some quarters but not generally from the mainstream media. Conservative direct-marketing guru Richard Viguerie told Newsmax the shift is part of a larger pattern.

“The facts of life are that Senator Obama makes decisions that help advance his career, and promises and relationships are to be discarded if they interfere with his ambitions,” Viguerie said.

Obama is the first presidential candidate to opt out of the public system of financing presidential campaigns. That system, which is designed to reduce the influence of huge campaign contributions on presidential politics, would have limited Obama to the same $85 million that McCain received when he accepted public financing.

When Obama announced his decision in June to reverse course and reject public financing, his aides confided privately that it could mar Obama’s image as a reformer offering a new brand of politics.

At the time, Obama blamed his decision on McCain and the GOP. “We’ve already seen that [McCain] is not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies’ running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations,” Obama said.

Viguerie rejects that explanation as “nothing more than a small and transparent fig leaf.”

cont.

Yes, Rick this is a Wal-Mart site. But it’s an anti Wal-Mart site. Although, lately, it has been a POLITICAL SITE.

Obama’s decision to reject public financing was a sharp reversal from earlier promises:

In early 2007, in a Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing, Obama stated that he wanted to work out an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing.

Obama also stated on a questionnaire, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election,” according to The New York Times,

On Feb. 26, during the Democratic primary debate in Cleveland, Ohio, Obama said, “I will sit down with John McCain and make sure we have a system that works for everybody.” The McCain campaign maintains that Obama’s operatives never joined them in substantive negotiations before Obama’s announcement that he would not accept public financing.

On April 27, Obama told Fox News host Chris Wallace: “I have promised that I would sit down with John McCan and talk about can we preserve a public [financing] system.”

Obama’s reversal on public campaign financing, and the huge amounts of cash he is raising from unidentified or untraceable donors, inevitably will lead to a major scandal, McCain has warned. Obama has raised close to $200 million from donations of $200 or less, the level at which donors’ names do not have to be reported to the SEC. McCain has released the names of all of his donors, including those who contributed less than $200.

“Senator Obama has unleashed a force which we will pay a very dear price for sometime in the future, if not now,” McCain told The Washington Times on Oct. 22. “Because it’s very unlikely we can track down and document the contributions that he refused to reveal.”

Independent 527 groups, named after the section of the tax code that allows them to participate in political activity without being taxed, have almost gone unnoticed in this year’s election. Several reasons have been cited for their reduced impact:

The downturn in the economy has reduced the donations given to the independent groups that mount 527 campaigns.

McCain, a staunch advocate of campaign-finance reform, is a long-time critic of the influence of so-called soft-money, which may have discouraged some contributors.

The FEC fined several 527 organizations for their activities following the 2004 election, and the prospect of legal entanglements may have made them less attractive vehicles for influencing elections.

At the time Obama opted out of public financing, his advisers expected he could raise $200 to $300 million for the general election. Obama’s actual fundraising figures have far exceeded that amount. His campaign raised more than $150 million in September alone, which has allowed him to outspend McCain in some key battleground states by a margin of 2-to-1.

Indeed, it now appears likely that Obama will raise and spend more money than President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, combined, spent in 2004. And those figures do not account for the massive assistance Obama has received from groups such as ACORN, the AFL-CIO and other unions, abortion-rights, and other organizations.

Obama’s use of the Internet is sure to revolutionize campaign financing, experts say. But whether it will also trigger a push for reform remains to be seen. The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint with the FEC charging that a host of Obama donations come from fictitious figures or foreign sources, or exceed the legal limits.

All of which means that the burgeoning controversy over Obama’s fundraising practices may dog his administration from the very outset, if he wins the election.

screwed, screwed the village idiot, You can run (like you did from the draft & Military Service) but you cant hide, They will find you, even under your MAMAS SKIRT!

October 31, 2008
Former Reagan adviser endorses Obama
Posted: 01:35 PM ET

From CNN’s Adam Levy

Duberstein is pulling for Obama.
(CNN) — Former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria this week he intends to vote for Democrat Barack Obama on Tuesday.

Duberstein said he was influenced by another prominent Reagan official - Colin Powell - in his decision.

“Well let’s put it this way - I think Colin Powell’s decision is in fact the good housekeeping seal of approval on Barack Obama.”

Powell served as national security advisor to Reagan during Duberstein’s tenure as chief of staff.

Duberstein spoke with Zakaria about his final days in the Reagan White House. The Reagan official, along with Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, also discussed the transition process to a new administration.

Watch the full discussion on the next administration this Sunday at 1 p.m. on Fareed Zakaria GPS,on CNN.

Revisiting the War Tax
by: Brandon Friedman
Fri Oct 31, 2008
I had a conversation this week with one of my Army buddies from Iraq.  He brought up the fact that a friend of his made $300,000 a year and was worried that an Obama administration would cost his [HIGH INCOME]family extra in new taxes.  I’m not sure how the math works out on that, but I took it as a complaint.  And this is where I begin to have a problem.
It’s no secret that lots of Americans feel as though they’re entitled to wage as many wars as they want without having to pay a price for it.  We know who these parasites are, and we know who they’re voting for on Tuesday.  I didn’t ask my buddy the question, but given that less than one percent of Americans are currently serving in the military, I assumed his wealthy friend had NO skin in the game.  And this brings me back to the eternal question: Why are those in uniform the ONLY ones being asked to sacrifice something (along with their families) in the prosecution these wars? 

We’re approaching 5,000 American deaths in wars that are going to cost around $2 trillion, if not more.  Given those facts, it’s OBSCENE that millions of people choose to whine about taxation, while they sit back and support NOT ONLY the war, BUT also those politicians who would both extend the wars and attempt to lower taxes.  George W. Bush summed up this mentality when he told everyone to go shopping after 9/11 as a method of fighting terrorism.

So I want to emphasize this point: A sizeable portion of the American population supports politicians who advocate for war and more war, while at the same time they complain about being taxed.  These same people who rail against government “handouts” for the poor, who abhor the idea of universal healthcare, and who cry “Socialism!” at Sarah Barracuda rallies, are the same ones who want their wars for free. 

I’m afraid it doesn’t work that way.~~~~~~~~~~~
Vet Voice

Obama Refuses to Answer Birth Certificate Lawsuit

Friday, October 24, 2008

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

A Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging that Barack Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” of the United States took an unusual twist this week, after a federally mandated deadline requiring Obama’s lawyers to produce a “vault” copy of his birth certificate expired with no response from Obama or his lawyers.

The lawsuit, filed by former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip J. Berg — a self-avowed supporter of Hillary Clinton — alleges that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus “ineligible” to run for president of the United States. It demands that Obama’s lawyers produce a copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he is a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Berg’s suit and allegations have set off a wave of Internet buzz and rumors, though Obama could easily have put the matter to rest by providing the federal court with the basic documentation proving he is eligible to take the oath of a president. But Obama has apparently decided to deny the court and the public that documentation.

The Constitution provides that any U.S. citizen is eligible to become president if the person is 35 years of age or older and is a natural-born citizen; that is, born in the territorial United States.

By failing to respond to the Request for Admissions and Request for the Production of Documents within 30 days, Obama has “admitted” that he was born in Kenya, Berg stated this week in new court filings.

Berg released a long list of “admissions” he submitted to Obama’s lawyers on Sept. 15, and asked that they produce documents relating to Obama’s place of birth and citizenship.

Instead of responding, lawyers for Obama and the DNC asked the court to dismiss the case. But Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued no ruling in the case that would have given Obama’s lawyers more time.

“There are lots of legal ways to stonewall,” a well-placed Republican attorney told Newsmax, who was not authorized to comment officially on the case. “But failing to respond is not one of them.”

“The first thing they teach you in law school,” he added, “is don’t put a complaint like this in a drawer. That’s how a nuisance case can become a problem.”

The 30-day deadline for defendants to comply with a discovery request is set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.

“It all comes down to the fact that there’s nothing from the other side,” Berg said after he filed a motion on Thursday for summary judgment.

“The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. [Obama] admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States.”

In a contentious case, lawyers on both sides will haggle over the production of documents, and will frequently go beyond the deadlines, several lawyers told Newsmax.

“The rules are more often complied with in the breech rather than the observance,” a senior trial attorney who has close ties to the Democrat Party, but is not involved in the current case, told Newsmax.

Obama is not just a danger to our economy, with his plans to raise taxes and spend $800 billion in new programs.

He is a radical out to reshape America beyond recognition.

He is so radical he even backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.

Even Hillary Clinton opposed his radical plan.

But Obama not only touted such a plan running for president, he pushed for giving illegals driver’s licenses as a state senator in Illinois.

He is also the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live-born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.

He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.

He originally backed Washington D.C.’s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an “F” on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.

Never forget that Obama is a Harvard-educated elitist. To him, we Americans are simply “bitter” and he has mocked us saying “[they] cling to their guns and their religion

You were so desperate Larry, that you did not enter the fake hijacking of the moniker correctly. On a serious note, are you going to kill yourself on Nov. 4th like the undemocratic, non-respecting, unAmerican coward and bigot that you really are? Ceremonial suicide and flag draped bravado with your RV parked in the corner of a Oklahoma City Walmart parking lot? At least purchase your own body bag instead of leaning on public services again.

Jane,

“Yes, Rick this is a Wal-Mart site. But it’s an anti Wal-Mart site. Although, lately, it has been a POLITICAL SITE.”

That will end in about 5 days, unless Obama loses, then we will hear a bunch of whining about how the Republicans ‘cheated’ and ‘stole’ the election, etc., etc., etc.!!

Palin is a goddam whore.

..reshape America beyond recognition.

A little reshaping is just what America needs. I don’t recognise an America with nationalized banks.

...we will hear a bunch of whining...

Like I said at the beginning of this campaign, if the Republicans pull the same shenanigans this time as they did in 2000 in Florida and in ‘04 in Ohio, this country is liable to get more than just some whining.

Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again. ~ George Bush

Hey, Hey, Mike-- Let’s Not Get Carried Away!

I’d “do” Sarah Palin, I just don’t want her and John McCain “do’in" this country for the next 4 years.

I’m so looking forward to November 5th when I can come back here to laugh at Larry in USN for wasting all his time on his useless fear mongering posts.  I see the nursing home hasn’t taken away your computer privileges yet, Larry!

By LYNNLEY BROWNING
Published: October 29, 2008
The Internal Revenue Service is considering a plan to curb a tactic commonly used by multinational corporations with American operations to lower their tax bills, a move that would help bring back some of the billions of dollars in taxable profits held overseas.

The plan was described on Wednesday by two government officials briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they said the plan was still in its early stages.

A spokesman for the I.R.S. declined to comment Wednesday on a report in a prominent industry publication, Tax Analysts, that quoted a senior I.R.S. official as telling a tax conference on Tuesday that current regulations could be tightened as early as next month.

The plan, as broadly described by the two officials, would be the latest step by the Treasury Department, which oversees the I.R.S., to find ways to ease the credit crisis that is agitating financial institutions.

In recent years, the I.R.S. has increased its scrutiny of corporations using the tactic, known as transfer pricing. Multinational corporations, whether based in the United States or overseas, are legally able to cut their United States taxes and keep profits offshore in low-tax jurisdictions through their calculations of the prices associated with transferring goods and services between their divisions.

The corporations are supposed to calculate those prices as if they were between independent entities and pay taxes, typically 35 percent, on profits brought back to the United States. But some companies abuse the tactic in improperly seeking to minimize their taxable profits in the United States and shift profits overseas by undercharging or overpaying foreign subsidiaries for goods and services.

By many accounts, abuse of the tactic deprives federal coffers of billions of dollars in tax revenue each year. Curtailing it could force scores of big corporations that are now in disputes with the I.R.S. over their transfer-pricing arrangements to pay large amounts in back taxes and penalties.

Among other things, the proposal includes the creation of a council within the I.R.S. that would be devoted to scrutinizing the loophole, the hiring of agents and tax specialists devoted to financial products and the promulgation of specific price structures.

“The government’s concern is that there is a significant amount of revenue being lost through what they would characterize as abusive transfer-pricing agreements,” said David B. Blair, a tax lawyer at Miller & Chevalier in Washington.

He said that the government was particularly concerned about the improper use of cost-sharing arrangements, in which related companies jointly develop intangible assets, like intellectual property and licensing agreements, and try to share the cost.

In one big case, GlaxoSmithKline agreed in 2006 to pay the I.R.S. $3.4 billion and abandon its claim for a tax refund of $1.8 billion to resolve a dispute over whether the company’s American subsidiary had overpaid its British parent company to reduce its profits, and thus its tax bill, in the United States.

Congressional scrutiny of the tactic has ramped up in recent years. The Senate Finance Committee is examining whether corporations are abusing an I.R.S. program that allows them to win advance approval of their pricing calculations. Douglas H. Shulman, the I.R.S. commissioner, is making international tax issues, of which transfer pricing is a crucial area, a chief focus of his administration.~Propublica~~~~~~~~NOTE: I wonder to what extent this would affect WalMart licensing agreements. Reminiscent of the Geoffrey Loophole tax avoidance .

Almost 100 years ago, economist William Graham Sumner aptly described the way a big government philosophy – the same philosophy Barack Obama espouses today - treats the productive American worker, calling him the “Forgotten Man.”

Well, recently Americans learned about one of those Forgotten Men – Joe the Plumber.  And Joe the Plumber helped us all see what an Obama White House will mean for working Americans.

When Joe confronted Senator Obama on the campaign trail with the question of what would happen to his taxes under an Obama Administration should he realize his dream of owning his own business, Joe cast the decision that faces us in this election in stark relief.

Which is better for our economy: Politicians redistributing our wealth or growing more wealth? 

And Senator Obama gave us an equally stark answer: Under his leadership, America will focus on “spreading around” the Forgotten Man’s wealth, not encouraging him to create more of it. 

So while Obama claims he will cut taxes for 95% of working families, what he really plans is to take more money from the Americans who already pay the great majority of income taxes and “spread the wealth” to many who don’t even pay taxes to begin with in the form of a government check.

The Barack Obama Democrats may think it’s their right to redistribute wealth, but it surely isn’t the view of the average American worker, and it’s clearly wrong.

We know that government should focus on creating the economic conditions that will allow all Americans to prosper, not to try and redistribute wealth more evenly among Americans.  We also know that the way for America to prosper is to leave Americans with more of their income, allowing them to do what they do best—create the businesses, jobs, and opportunities that drive our vast economy. 

Joe the Plumber has struck a chord because he reminds us (and should remind politicians in Washington) that government, no matter how well intentioned, has to be paid for, and that money comes from guys like Joe.  Politicians can either bleed him dry to fund their programs, or they can encourage Americans to create more jobs and more wealth – and keep government limited and effective.

That’s the choice we face in this election

“The state cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from
some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced
and saved it.  This latter is the Forgotten Man.”

-- William Graham Sumner

Thanks again Larry for your support of the CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY. You fake internet troll, more loser economic lies from the Ayn Rand dumpster of the discarded SIFE business cult.

WalMart/Bushco- Propaganda and communism, our mission to retail slave wage America while wrecking the U.S. economy.

This latter is the Forgotten Man.

I couldn’t agree with Sumner more. The engine of the economy is the “man who has produced
and saved” wealth, in other words, labor! It’s only when this wealth is put into the hands of casino capitalists that it’s squandered.

Why do so many Republicans resent paying their share for all the things provided by the “state”?

“Derivatives and hedge funds are like casino gambling,” said South Korean Finance Minister Kang Man-soo. “A lot of Koreans are asking, how can the United States be so weak?”

Revisiting the War Tax
by: Brandon Friedman
Fri Oct 31, 2008
I had a conversation this week with one of my Army buddies from Iraq.  He brought up the fact that a friend of his made $300,000 a year and was worried that an Obama administration would cost his [HIGH INCOME]family extra in new taxes.  I’m not sure how the math works out on that, but I took it as a complaint.  And this is where I begin to have a problem.
It’s no secret that lots of Americans feel as though they’re entitled to wage as many wars as they want without having to pay a price for it.  We know who these parasites are, and we know who they’re voting for on Tuesday.  I didn’t ask my buddy the question, but given that less than one percent of Americans are currently serving in the military, I assumed his wealthy friend had NO skin in the game.  And this brings me back to the eternal question: Why are those in uniform the ONLY ones being asked to sacrifice something (along with their families) in the prosecution these wars? 

We’re approaching 5,000 American deaths in wars that are going to cost around $2 trillion, if not more.  Given those facts, it’s OBSCENE that millions of people choose to whine about taxation, while they sit back and support NOT ONLY the war, BUT also those politicians who would both extend the wars and attempt to lower taxes.  George W. Bush summed up this mentality when he told everyone to go shopping after 9/11 as a method of fighting terrorism.

So I want to emphasize this point: A sizeable portion of the American population supports politicians who advocate for war and more war, while at the same time they complain about being taxed.  These same people who rail against government “handouts” for the poor, who abhor the idea of universal healthcare, and who cry “Socialism!” at Sarah Barracuda rallies, are the same ones who want their wars for free. 

I’m afraid it doesn’t work that way.~~~~~~~~~~~
Vet Voice

Did you know?
McCain consistently opposes the Federal marriage Amendment, voting against the proposal in both 2004 and 2006.
http://gays4mccain.com/

Did you know this?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The SPOTLIGHT November 15, 1999
McCain is famous in POW-MIA activist circles for his clashes with those who disagree with his conclusion that no American POW or MIA was left alive in communist hands when he was repatriated by the Hanoi government in 1973.
Perhaps the best example of his crude treatment of the loved ones of still-unaccounted-for POWs and MIAs is illustrated by an incident that occurred in 1996 when the senator’s path crossed with a number of POW-MIA family members outside of a hearing room in Washington.
Upon leaving the room, McCain immediately quarreled with family members, who were eager to question him on the issue. Instead of answering their questions, the Arizona senator pushed and shoved them out of his way, nearly toppling the wheelchair of POW-MIA mother Jane Duke Gaylor, whose son, Charles Duke, a civilian worker in Vietnam, is among the same 2,300 American POWs and MIAs still unaccounted for by the communists.
The Duke case file contains sufficient evidence that Duke was a prisoner of the communists, according to Garnet “Bill” Bell, who headed the U.S. government POW-MIA office in Hanoi.
The POW-MIA activists, shocked and horrified by McCain’s crude behavior toward Mrs Gaylor, registered their complaints with Senate officials. Mrs Gaylor and her niece, Geannette Jenkins, who was pushing her wheelchair, were advised by Sgt. Dana Sundberg of the Capitol Hill Police to file assault charges against McCain. They declined, fearful of the power of the Arizona senator.~~~~~~~~~~

Open Letter to John McCain
North Carolina veterans urge McCain to stop playing politics with troops
August 2008
In response to Sen. John McCain’s efforts to spread false information about Sen. Obama’s support for U.S. troops, a group of North Carolina veterans today wrote an open letter to the Republican candidate, calling on him to end his divisive attacks:

An Open Letter from North Carolina Veterans to Senator John McCain:

As Americans and North Carolina veterans, we are disappointed in your treatment of Sen. Barack Obama and his visit to our troops while in Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iraq. You may differ with Senator Obama on the strategy in Iraq, but we should be united in support for our brave troops and their fight to protect this nation. When you attempt to distort Sen. Obama’s actions - at a time when we face enormous challenges abroad - you do not honor your promise to run a civil campaign. While we respect your service to our country, we cannot stand by while you falsely attack Senator Obama.

Your attempt to sully Sen. Obama’s intentions is particularly discouraging because your own record on veterans does not measure up to his. While Obama consistently voted to provide funding and badly needed equipment for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, you voted to authorize President Bush to send troops into combat without adequate vehicle and body armor. Sen. Obama supported the 21st Century GI Bill from the beginning - giving every returning veteran a real chance to go to college. You opposed it when your support was really needed. Sen. Obama voted for increased funding for military and veterans hospitals when a $1.2 billion shortfall was identified. You did not. Sen. Obama introduced legislation to improve the disgraceful conditions at some of our military hospitals, but your support of wounded veterans has so neglected their needs, the Disabled American Veterans consistently rank your record at below 50 percent.

Sen. Obama knows that support for troops fighting today must continue when they become veterans returning to the country they served. He visited American troops last week to express his deep gratitude for their dedication - a gratitude he makes good on with his support of veterans here at home. We ask that you put an end to these attacks and conduct the honest and honorable campaign you promised the American people.

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

Vote Vets

Michigan Messenger - Veterans groups not saluting McCain’s health care card
By Diane Sweet 11/3/08

Both John McCain and Barack Obama agree with major veterans groups that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system is broken.

The agency charged with providing medical care for veterans of the U.S. military has, for example, had difficulty providing proper care for new types of injuries incurred by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Concussive brain injuries due to roadside bombs have taxed the VA system, as has the psychological care needed for the alarming number of returning soldiers and Marines with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. McCain offers “standing in line to get an appointment to get an appointment” as another example of the troubles both candidates say they want to solve.

Where the candidates disagree, however, is in some of the details of how they intend to accomplish the reform. The most notable division between the plans of Obama and McCain is the potential expansion of veterans care to the private sector. McCain’s plan calls for the use of a health care access card intended to allow veterans access to private doctors if they aren’t able to get into a VA facility in a timely manner.

It is a conservative tenet to redirect the functions of government to the private sector, such as the Republican-led effort to privatize many of the functions once carried out by the U.S. military. According to McCain, his plan will improve health care for veterans by making it easier for them to use non-VA hospitals:

Too many veterans are unable to obtain health care through the VA because of geographical constraints, unreasonably long waiting lists, or the lack of specialized facilities at local VA hospitals. John McCain will develop and enforce new standards for veterans’ access to health care for injuries or illness related to military service: no more than an hour’s drive for care, routine care within a week, urgent care within 24 hours, and specialty care within a month.

The Traverse City Record-Eagle reported on problems veterans in northern Michigan have when the nearest special care they need is in VA hospitals in Saginaw or Ann Arbor.

Obama’s plan would improve the VA through funding rather than outsourcing. His plan also calls for an end to the 2003 ban on covering modest-income vets that has led to the denial of VA care to 1.5 million veterans — something that McCain says would risk “clogging the system.” McCain says he doesn’t oppose adding the banned veterans [Also known as Priority 8’s] back into the VA roll, but says income tests to gradually absorb the group is the best way to do that.

From a March 2008 joint press release of the Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committees:

On January 17, 2003, the Bush Administration banned enrollment of “Priority 8″ veterans into the VA health care system due to resource constraints. Priority 8’s are non service-connected veterans who exceed a certain income cap, currently as low as $28,430 in some regions. VA estimates that as many as 1.5 million middle-income veterans have been denied, or are awaiting, enrollment into the VA health care system due to this restriction.

Another key issue being eyed for reform is the VA’s funding stream, which has been inconsistent, according to the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), a nonpartisan advocacy organization of disabled vets with more than 1.4 million members. As DAV asserts, it’s been 12 years since Congress approved a VA budget ahead of the VA budget year. The DAV says that IF the funding stream can be corrected, the VA would be in a better position to take care of veterans needs in a timely fashion.

McCain has addressed the funding issue, but DAV has said it fears that McCain’s platform could place FURTHER roadblocks in the way of consistent funding.

What the DAV voices the most concern about the question of PRIVATIZATION.

Joe Violante, DAV national legislative director, detailed his concerns in an August article in the National Journal this way:

“The problem with contracting out [to private health care providers] is the COSTS are GREATER than it is for VA to treat individuals at VA,” Violante said. “So, IF we send more veterans out into the private sector, we start INCREASING the costs for VA health care, which then forces VA to ration care to those individuals who are within the system. … We believe if we can correct the funding stream, VA would be in a better situation to take care of more veterans in a timely fashion.”

As quoted in the August article in the National Journal, McCain denied that the card idea was tantamount to privatization:

“As today, as other occasions, I have stated in the plainest, most straightforward terms that the Veterans Health Care Access Card will expand existing benefits,” McCain said. “I don’t expect this to deter the Obama campaign from misrepresenting my proposals, but lest there be any doubt, you have my pledge: My reforms would not force anyone to go to a non-VA facility. That is my promise. They will not signal privatization of the VA.”

Still the DAV is not alone in its skepticism.

In an Associated Press article from this summer, VA Secretary James Peake spoke regarding the card component of McCain’s veteran’s platform:

After touring the Manchester VA Medical Center, VA Secretary James Peake also said he is AGAINST giving veterans cards to let them receive treatment at NON-VA facilities.

“That’s called Yellow-Page medicine,” Peake said. “I think that potentially is dangerous, because I’m not sure the individual is necessarily the best consumer. It’s hard to be an EDUCATED consumer of health care.”

He said keeping veterans in the system IMPROVES care by keeping it coordinated.

Larry Scott of the private Web site VAWatchdog.org also OPPOSES McCain’s access card program. In an August post on his blog he wrote:

For every veteran who opts for private health care, that is one less veteran using the VA … which means the VA would receive less funding. So it would “privatize” a great deal of VA health care and lead to the decline, or even the destruction, of the VA as we know it. The solution is not to offer private health care that would cost the taxpayers 25% to 100% more per visit or procedure, but to PROPERLY fund the VA to do the job it is supposed to do. The solution is MANDATORY funding for VA health care, something to which McCain is OPPOSED.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Notice to All Employees

As of November 5, 2008, if President Obama is officially elected into office, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:

1.  All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you.  This will serve to give those of you who are underachieving a “fair shake.”

2.  All low level workers will be pooling their wages, includi ng overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst yourselves.  This will help those who are “too busy for overtime” to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.

3.  All top management will now be referred to as “the government.” We will not participate in this “pooling” experience because the law doesn’t apply to us.

4.  The “government” will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging it’s workers to continue to work hard “for the good of all.”

5.  The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it’s “good to spread the wealth.” Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more “patriotic.”

6.  The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks.  Don’t feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free foodstamps, and he’ll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can’t pay your mortgage.  If you appeal directly to our Democratic Congress, you might even get a free flatscreen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn’t all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?) !!!

If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.

Romney: McCain’s Cap And Trade Plan Would ‘Just Kill Jobs’ In The U.S.
Today, the right wing — enthusiastically joined by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) — attacked Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for advocating in a January interview a cap and trade plan that would mandate new coal plants to be built with carbon capture technology. McCain said he wanted to control emissions, but insisted, “I’m not going to let our coal industry go bankrupt.” Palin said Obama has been “talking about bankrupting the coal industry,” and pledged, “John McCain and I, we will not let that happen to the coal industry.”

Now former governor Mitt Romney is using McCain’s attacks against Obama to ATTACK McCAIN HIMSELF! On Glenn Beck’s radio show today, he denounced McCain’s cap and trade program, saying it would “kill jobs” in the U.S. and that he would “endeavor to convince” McCain to change his plans:

BECK: How would you address the cap and trade on the day when everyone’s paying attention to coal?

ROMNEY: Well as you know, there were a number of places in the primary campaign where I disagreed with John McCain, and his cap and trade proposal was one of them. … If you want to negotiate with someone and you feel it’s important to bring down global CO2 emissions then China HAS TO BE part of the picture. And if we go out there and put a burden on our OWN industry and THEY DON’T put a burden on THEIRS, why you’ll just kill jobs here.

Both McCain and Obama support the development of carbon sequestration technologies; in fact, in the same interview conservatives are now hyperventilating over, Obama said, “This idea of no coal, I think, is an illusion.” What’s more, a green energy-based economy built through an aggressive cap-and-trade program would create millions of jobs and generate billions of dollars for investment into clean energy, as John McCain himself noted just six months ago:

As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy. … A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy. Those who want clean coal technology, more wind and solar, nuclear power, biomass and bio-fuels will have their opportunity through a new market that rewards those and other innovations in clean energy.

It can’t be a good sign for McCain that one of his top surrogates has turned McCain’s own campaign lines back against him — on the day before the election, no less! ~~~~~~Think Progress,Nov. 3,2008

“Unless the people, through united action, arise and take charge of their government, they will find that their government has taken charge of them. Independence and liberty will be gone, and the general public will find itself in a condition of servitude to an aggregation of organized and selfish ambitions.”
-Calvin Coolidge October 1932

ddrb,

You sure like quoting Republicans, don’t you?  Didn’t Thomas Jefferson say much the same in the Declaration of Independence?

RDS: I like quoting great ideas.The Republican party of Abe Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt tthrough Dwight Eisenhower is NOT the GOP of today. Do you realize that you have ALREADY begun to discredit yourOWN earlier statement about the importance of unity?

You sure like quoting Republicans...

Hello? RDS?

You obviously didn’t get the memo. The Age of Partisan Rancor is over! We have to unite that divided house Lincoln spoke of.

The average Wal-Mart shopper lives in the suburbs, is roughly 5-foot-2 and wears a size 14. ~ NYT

ddrb,

“Do you realize that you have ALREADY begun to discredit yourOWN earlier statement about the importance of unity?”

And, just HOW am I doing that?  Hasn’t it been YOU, in very long posts, slamming the Republicans for the last few weeks?  And isn’t it YOU that has basically called the Republican Administration, a ‘Monster’?

RDS: Your wife must have curtailed the time allowed onyour computer priveleges. Not enough time to READ the comments. Paul Krugman authored the piece.

ddrb,

“Paul Krugman authored the piece.”

Maybe, but YOU posted it, therefore, you must agree with it!!

...YOU posted it, therefore, you must agree with it!!

You’re thinking is ... errr… somewhat linear, RDS.

“There are a lot of issues here, but what they add up to is the end of the age of Wal-Mart,” contends Richard Hastings, a senior analyst for the retail rating agency Bernard Sands. “The glory days are over.”

yMduDB <a >qmwtfqeqnmee</a>, uxhwqbnlwcfg, [link=http://kgsuadrpywbp.com/]kgsuadrpywbp[/link], http://eajoggfyxwvy.com/

nMHlK7 <a >ozsqhcqjpvby</a>, pakeckmvgtrm, [link=http://uvglotdjxobz.com/]uvglotdjxobz[/link], http://yoqucksnxskn.com/

mammamia; hoodia; cialis soft tabs; doxycycline; order zyrtec; buy propecia; zithromax buy; viagra online; prednisone; purchase levitra; sildenafil citrate; rimonabant 20 mg; propecia;

mammamia; brand cialis cheap order; cialis name brand cheapest online prices; viagra generic brand; cheapest brand cialis; order viagra; vendo viagra cialis levitra; canada levitra; cialis; viagra brand cheap; levitra; buy cialis; cialis; levitra; order viagra; cialis tablets; buy levitra; cialis; cialis köpa; cialis uk sales; buy cialis; viagra online buy brand generic; el viagra generico; levitra; il viagra; achat viagra; viagra generico; cheap generic cialis; levitra vendita,
; buy viagra; venta cialis; viagra; canada cialis; cialis; cialis canada; viagra; cialis; cialis purchase; venta de levitra; viagra brand 50 mg generic; cialis; buy levitra; no prescription cialis; brand cialis name online order; viagra; levitra; cialis; viagra; viagra; viagra; buy cialis; brand cialis name online order; generic cialis online; cialis; levitra; cheap levitra brand; cialis; vendo viagra;

mammamia; avapro; buy hytrin; buy cheap avodart online; generic artane; vasotec order; differin; buy luvox; pravachol; floxin; purchase alpha lipoic acid; colchicine; lithium carbonate; cheap cardura; order prometrium; lithium carbonate; desyrel; order cheap ashwagandha; hytrin cheap; male enhancement pills; generic aricept; mevacor; generic mevacor; kamagra; cheap tegretol; plendil; toprol xl; accupril; voltaren; kamagra; avalide; tofranil; buy lariam; generic female viagra; buy cheap casodex; dilantin; cheap nitrofurantoin; dramamine; buy karela;

mammamia; cheap colchicine; cheap meclizine; trileptal; indocin; atarax; online bcaa; pravachol; toradol; benicar; cytoxan; order albendazole; triphala; pamelor; pyridium; inderal; purchase amoxil online; mevacor; online exelon; haldol; betnovate online; buy sarafem; buy abana; horny goat weed; cheap lanoxin; buy abana; purchase tulasi; keppra; minocycline; buy generic periactin online; cheap tricor; karela; dipyridamole; buy generic zimulti; cleocin purchase; terramycin; tegretol online; casodex; herbal phentermine order; dramamine buy online; imodium; zanaflex; buy cheap aldactone online;

mammamia; methotrexate; aspirin; prednisone; breast augmentation; generic rogaine usa,
; order cheap zovirax; buy bactrim online; buy hydrochlorothiazide; risperdal; stress relief buy online; cephalexin; cheap folic acid online; ginseng cheap; order synthroid; metformin; online msm; buy cheap acai online; celebrex; flomax online; synthroid uk; crestor; buy effexor; folic acid; generic yasmin; buspar; buy aleve; echinacea online; folic acid online; order plavix; strattera; generic aleve; bupropion; buy cheap plan b; fosamax; rogaine cheap; buy amitriptyline; tramadol; zithromax; calcium carbonate; buy soma; yasmin; ultracet; buy cheap celexa; generic ultracet; vytorin buy online; order gaba; zetia; buy fosamax; vitamin c; motrin; cheap celexa usa; order alli; cipro;

mammamia; buy cialis soft tabs; hoodia; lipitor; lipitor; lexapro cheap; buy acomplia; weight loss,
; online cialis; accutane; buy cheap hoodia; zoloft online; online zoloft; propranolol; accutane generic; viagra soft tabs; order generic lipitor; rimonabant tablets; cialis online; buy cheap generic propecia; propranolol buy online; accutane cheap; generic clomid usa; clomid; weight loss,
; generic stromectol usa; buy rimonabant; buy prozac online; stromectol; propecia canada; cialis; buy cheap levitra online; acomplia; doxycycline; cialis soft tabs uk; viagra; viagra generic; propranolol usa; prozac; zoloft; prozac;