From Conception...To Election

"Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains Natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution..." Pen Johannson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Monday, January 3, 2011

Gaping Holes In Obama’s Bio Remain Anemic Story For Big Media

Overall, the media remains pathetic, however, Fox and MSNBC actually share a miraculous moment when their primetime competitors both admit Obama has never released his original 1961 natal documentation.

by Dan Crosby
of The Daily Pen

New York, NY - After nearly four years of weakening attempts to dismiss the subject, the media’s coverage of the actual details and essential questions about Obama’s legitimacy to be President remains pathetically wanton on every news network and publication in the world.

On its December 30, 2010 broadcast of “America Live”, Fox News, the self proclaimed “fair and balanced” network, with the help of legal maven Megan Kelly, tried, futilely, once again, to present the reality about the gaping voids in Barack Obama’s ambiguously documented biography. Fox may have a trademark claim on equilibrium but the network is vastly inaccurate when it comes to this subject.


Credit to Fox, although Kelly piggy-backed an excuse to talk about the mythology of Obama’s legitimacy on the lead-in that newly elected Hawaiian Democratic Governor, Neil Abercrombie, claims that he is currently working with the Hawaiian Attorney General to determine if there are legal channels which could allow him to release more original, biographical information about Barack Obama and, as Abercrombie says, “…put an end to the offensive claims of birthers.” Fox did talk about it.


Miracle number one!

While Kelly fumbled through the clumsy dialogue with her two guests, Fox’s ugly, evil cousin network from the other side of the tracks, MSNBC, made a fool of itself a few days earlier during its December 27th broadcast of “Hardball” when Chris “Leg Tingle” Matthews interviewed two southpaw guests, Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page, and Mother Jones bureau chief David Corn.


MSNBC is so biased for Obama it can no longer discern between news reporting and propaganda.

See videos here:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4478615/will-birther-debate-end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baH0fi2oVHs

If Fox’s indifference hasn’t been bad enough, MSNBC has taken a position on the other extreme of super-bias in favor of Obama’s secrecy…with an equal degree of inaccuracy. Matthews' opening introduction indicates the myopic perspective poisoning MSNBC's capacity for objectivity. While displaying a copy of an image of what appears to be a photo static version of an original, standard U.S. "Certificate of Live Birth" (probably one of two containing information about the Nordyke twins posted last year), Matthews said, "This is an actual birth certificate, the long-form Certificate of Live Birth in the State of Hawaii..."

Miracle number two!

This is the very first time anyone at MSNBC has ever broadcast its endorsement of this 110 year old document format! For the first time in more than four years of unacknowledged reality, MSNBC admitted the single most important fact about Obama's natal documentation!

However, don't expect the ultra-liberal delusional minions to be cured in one shrink session. Matthews, then held up a copy of an image of an independently published, post-2000, Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, (the document commonly associated with Obama), continued, "...this, on the other hand, is what they release, generally, to the public, a 'thinner' form...I'm not sure if it has less information, but it is digital, of course it doesn't have signatures on it, and to the 'birthers', is evidence he really ain't one of us!"

Also, just so Matthews knows we all are aware of his passive aggressive, snarky comment, no one has ever said that Obama's lack of standard, original documentation means that 'he ain't one of us'. It just means his legitimacy to be president has not been clarified based on the evidence. Apparently, according to MSNBC and Matthews, everyone not automatically qualified to be the U.S. President is a victim of racism. If Matthews had his way, America could be led by genocidal fascists as long as they were not white.

Matthews ignorance about the Constitution is so absurd, its laughable.

That leg tingle is fading for Matthews. He's had more fun at the dentist. Even while the reality of the disparity between these two massively different documents is being held in his very hands, he still had difficulty accepting the facts.

"I'm not sure if it has less information.."??!! Is Matthews serious? Look at the document content, man! Can he count? He is so blinded by his leftist delusion, he still is unable to behold the painful truth, even while holding it in his own hand.

While main street conservatives push the essential questions about Obama’s deception, the San Fransicko-liberal establishment has mounted a ridiculous mock-fest at anyone with any question doubting Obama’s suspiciously vacant past. The true evil in both sides of this derision is the claim that the facts are already known. They are not. Anyone who says so is a liar.

Fox and MSNBC are two sides of the same coin. Their viewers may be diametrically opposed, ideologically, but they both need to make sure their proximity to the Obama administration remains legitimate in order for them to remain legitimate. Ironically, what drives the media's inability to objectively address the facts about Obama's documentation is the unknown risk the subject's revelations have on their access to government.


If Obama is found illegitimate or ineligible, all the debates about his policies can no longer be framed within the viability of legitimacy. If Fox and MSNBC are ever forced to embrace the reasons for Obama’s covert identity, they are afraid it will remove their capacity for sustainable ideologically oriented debate. If Obama is found to be a usurper, his politics no longer matter…and therefore, Fox and MSNBC no longer matter.

Recall, just eight years ago, as the Bush administration presented its original documentation, for its legal case for war against Saddam Hussein to the U.N., presenting slide shows, illustrations and testimony about the threat of Saddam’s weapons-of-mass-destruction, liberal network and cable media failed then to mete out the applicable facts of that drama. Many maintain, even today, that Bush's decision to depose Hussein was never based on legitimate evidence, even though it was an undeniable fact that Saddam Hussein had violated 17 U.N. security council resolutions regarding it's lack of disclosure about his possession, or not, of WMD's. The inconvenient fact that Saddam had actually used nerve gas against northern Kurds in Halabja in 1988 seemed to remain a hidden truth among biased media drones. Some liberal pundits actually said that since Saddam only used WMDs inside the borders of Iraq, he was not a threat to the world.

Of course, Bush had a legal right based on U.N. resolutions, but did he have the credibility of legitimate documentation to support his argument that Saddam was behind the attacks of 9-11? Likewise, of course, if you ask any lawyer,Obama has a legal standing based on Hawaiian municipal laws to release a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, but does he have the credibility to ensure that a lack of the original, legitimate documentation should be excused while he lays claims that he is a legitimate president?

Why did the media not report these facts supporting the legal reasons Bush cited for invading Hussein? For the same reason it refuses to report the facts about Obama's biographic information. Because it doesn't benefit the media milkers to butcher their cash cow.

Just as the medical industry understands there is no profit in curing a disease in lieu of extended treatment, the media understands there is no money in revealing the truth in lieu of exploiting a mystery. Voracity for controversy drives the media’s choice to avoid investigating the truth about Obama and, instead, justifies the daily dosage of avoidance as long as the deception can survive.


As long as the media is able to exploit vague information to make Obama look like a mere symptom of change rather than investigating evidence that he is the carrier of a disease destroying our sovereignty, it can continue to milk the Obama cow many times instead of butchering it all at once.


The dilema facing Obama, however, is that America is a severely lactose intolerant carnivore.

For example, the media has profited much from the narrative that the 2008 election of the first “black” president was a positive sign of a progressing society. The media adopted this liberal message without ever looking at the probable corruption and possible criminal activity in that President’s past. There is a lot of smoke, and fire, in that investigation.

Therefore, in defense of itself, American society was forced to fill the gaping orifice that used to be responsible journalism with unified national movements like the Tea Party, concerned with government spending and taxation, and the so-called “birthers”, concerned with the lack of standard records and Constitutional legitimacy of the Obama administration.

These unification movements are not irrational. In fact, they are the natural consequence when government threatens inalienable rights; particularly the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment and the 10th Amendment.

Without the media protecting the people, holding their government accountable, the people had to prepare itself for the possibility that the election of Obama was actually the usurpation of power by an illegitimate rogue, radical, communist, puppet-leader acting in coordination with an international and domestic leftist agenda to undermine the stronghold of longstanding, vintage American exceptionalism by redistributing white, judeo-christian wealth toward the ultimate goal of global economic justice.

There is no longer any doubt that Fox and MSNBC have hindered a resolution to the controversy over Obama’s undocumented identity. However, it was joyous to see them agree with the American public for once.

Let’s make something very clear. Those who denounce Obama’s credibility based on his lack of biographical transparency are not claiming, specifically, that he was not born in Hawaii. They are protesting the covert treatment of what are considered common documentation, which every other American must present for reasons far less significant than being the President, demonsrating that he was indeed born under the geographic, biographic and demographic circumstances he has claimed.

For monetary and political reasons, Obama’s natal biography has become a part of some weird media black-out. Reporters and pundits all look like scared little kids waiting for some guidance from Obamaland. In fact, the majority of people questioning Obama’s identity actually believe he was born in Hawaii. However, the media is not willing to accept the fact that his birth place is not what people are concerned about. The primary concerns about Obama exist because he was not thoroughly vetted, his records remain hidden and he has simply not been honest in his disclosure about is biographical information.

However, Kelly on Fox, and Matthews on MSNBC did get one fact right for the first time in the last four years of evasion. They both finally admitted that Obama has yet to produce a standard U.S. 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth”, which is the only document available to natural-born citizens of the U.S.


At one point, Kelly said, “Abercrombie is going to try to do more to release an actual, tangible birth certificate…which has yet to be produced.”


Chris Matthews likewise nearly choked during his show in saying, “Why has the president himself not demanded that they put out the initial documents (an original 1961 birth certificate)?”


Miracle number three!!!

Finally! Good job, guys. Welcome to the party! It’s nice to see the two fringes of the big media spectrum come out their hypnosis for once.

Reality is a lot better than clucking like a chicken, huh? Let's hope Fox and MSNBC can remain lucid and unsusceptible to Obama's spellbinding suggestions.





10 comments:

  1. The Main Stream Media has covered Obama's eligibility in considerable detail.

    For example, the Wall Street Journal said:

    “The birthers have also misrepresented the law in the claims they have made about Obama’s birth certificate. In truth, Obama has proved that he is a native of Hawaii, and this proof would hold up in any legal or administrative proceeding.

    In order to explain the birthers’ deception on this point, it is necessary to delve into the arcana of Hawaiian vital records. The document that Obama has released, which carries the title “certification of live birth,” confirms that the president was born in Honolulu. It is a legal birth certificate, and, as the Honolulu Star-Bulletin notes, it is the only kind of birth certificate the state of Hawaii issues….

    Further, if Congress were to pass the so-called birther bill, Obama would be able to comply easily. The bill would require presidential campaigns to submit “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” to the Federal Election Commission. The certificate Obama has released publicly would meet this requirement.”

    And it concluded:

    "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."

    That is because Obama has shown the official and only birth certificate that Hawaii has issued since 2001.

    ReplyDelete
  2. smrstrauss

    Then why did MSNBC and FOX make the distinction between the two documents?

    As we have said from the beginning, the legality of the Certification of Live Birth is not in question. The illegitimacy of NOT releasing the original, 1961 Certificate of Live Birth, signed by a licensed medical professional bearing the name of the hospital in which the doc originated, is the question.

    I happen to believe Obama was born in Hawaii. However, the political and international ramifications against Obama should be more of a concern than any legal ones. It goes to the heart of his credibility, not legal qualification.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why did I not release the original copy of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony? Answer: Because I do not have it.

    The same applies to Obama and his original birth certificate. He does not have it either. He does not have it because Hawaii did not send it to him. Hawaii did not send it to him because in 2001 it stopped sending out the original birth certificate to ANY0NE, even to people born before 2001.

    Could Hawaii change its laws or its rules to permit the original to be sent out again? Sure, of course it could, but until then the facts remain that Obama has shown what he was sent, and it is the official birth certificate, and the facts on it were confirmed repeatedly by the REPUBLICAN officials in Hawaii.

    Now, I will bet you that you did not ask to see Bush's birth certificate or Clinton's. You may reply, "but there was no question about their place of birth, there is with Obama." Well, the only question about Obama's place of birth has been manufactured by birthers. That is the absurd claim that he was born in Kenya. Some sites repeat the lie that Obama's Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya--when she actually said repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama's birth was in a letter from Hawaii.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Remember, it is a question of "to what degree shall Obama be considered the most legitimate President possible." The spirit of the Constitutional mandate is not about defining a President's legal viability, only. It is about making sure that the sovereignty of the American people remains protected.

    If Obama seeks full credibility, there is a way to achieve it. Otherwise, the gaping, bleeding wound of his vacant qualifications will continue to hurt him.

    Perhaps you are right. We just have to accept the fact that a Certification of Live Birth from a remote, ambiguously defined municipal construct, way out in the Pacific Ocean, is the best an ambiguously identified man like Obama can do. Kinda sad, if you ask me. Especially, when he has the authentic documentation available to exonerate himself.

    Think...full legitimacy, not legalized qualifications.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Certification of Live Birth is a short-form birth certificate like those of most states now. The original birth certificate, as I said, can be released by Hawaii, and there are people in Hawaii who are trying to do just this (for example, the new governor, Neil Abercrombie). But this may require a change in the law.

    Until then we have the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which is more than any other president has published. And we have the fact that the officials have repeatedly confirmed the facts on Obama's birth certificate.

    As for "full crediblity," Obama's election was confirmed UNANIMOUSLY by the US Congress, and that is full credibility. Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the same one that thousands of people use every year to get passports. It is the only one that Hawaii has sent out since 2001.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I will simplify the debate so we can establish our final, respective, positions on this matter.

    I reject the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth as a viable form of natal documentation to serve the primary form of identification proving the eligibility of a Presidential candidate. I am not interested in what other states have implemented. Obama did not run for president of Hawaii. He ran for president of the entire U.S. Therefore, the laws enacted to legitimize a municipal documentation process must adhere to the federal, Constitutional eligibility mandates.

    The Hawaiian document may be a recently approved form of identification for passports, school registration, PTA membership and fishing licenses, but, in comparison to being president, I believe, as do an increasing number of Americans, that a more detail and scrutiny is required. The position is endowed with too much power and influence to not know more about the identity of the person filling it.

    The attempt to legitimize the independently published digital Hawaiian print-out does not change the original facts and identity of the individual present at the natal event. Nor does it excuse by ambiguous administraive privilege the facts behind its creation and legal configuration, no matter what "embarrassing" information is seeks to omit. Nor does it address the custom, remote, municipal laws created 60 years after the first federal vital statistics collection standards were enacted. Hawaii's cultural evolution and contentious immigration history created a necessity to allow Hawaii and its municipality to issue these documents to foreign-born children of non-citizen Hawaiian residents. Nor, does the natal documentation process pacify concerns of the autonomous power given to the Hawaiian Health Dept. director by Administrative rule 91 and HRS 338-17.8, which directly contradict the federal eligibility mandates of the U.S. Constitution. Hawaii also employs AR 93 which allows the Vital Statistics office to declare the "usual residence of the mother the same location as the place of birth, regardless of the actual birth place."

    I encourage you to research the detailed metrics of these facts. They were very educational for me four years ago during my trips to Hawaii, Great Britain and Kenya in helping me understand how this epic consequence became manifest.

    You obviously accept the Hawaiian cover document. I simply feel it is a diminished vestige preventing Obama from being the most legitimate president possible in the eyes of the world. Especially, when it has been professed time and time again that the original document, which he confesses to have possessed on page 26 of his autobiography, Dreams From My Father, would exonerate his claims to political legitimacy. You may cite decisions from any court of legislative body you want. It does not change the fact that the truth about Obama's biography remains tragically wanton and "less than." I have called this void, "The Opacity of Obama's Otherness" Besides, I consider congress to be the absolute worst source of authority on this particular matter, given the losses to the Democrat party seats and its current approval rating of about 11%.

    These are just a few small examples. If you are interested in further understanding the more reasons why I reject Hawaii's municipal surrogacy in the face of federal mandates, I invite you to read my blog history.

    Thanks for commenting. I appreciate the perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Re: “I reject the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth as a viable form of natal documentation to serve the primary form of identification proving the eligibility of a Presidential candidate.

    Answer: You are not in charge of the process. The people who are, the US Congress, decided UNANIMOUSLY that Obama had been elected, meaning that not one of them had an issue with his eligibility. You may not feel that the short-form birth certificate of Hawaii or any other state is official, but Hawaii does and so does the US State Department.

    Re: “I believe, as do an increasing number of Americans, that a more detail and scrutiny is required. “

    Answer: I would be delighted, as would Obama and Governor Abercrombie of Hawaii would too, to show the original birth certificate. It will show, in fact it MUST show, that Obama was born in Hawaii. If not, the four officials (the three who confirmed plus the original clerk) would have to be lying, as would Abercrombie and the witness. But currently the situation in Hawaii is that the original birth certificate is not sent out to anyone. So, they are trying to make an exception for Obama. This may require revising the law.

    Until that happens, the facts remain the same: Obama has shown the official birth certificate, and the facts on it have been confirmed repeatedly, and there is not a particle of evidence that he was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

    Re: ‘no matter what "embarrassing" information is seeks to omit. “

    Answer: There are no fields on the original birth certificate that COULD include any embarrassing information. For example, there is no field for the race of the baby, and no field for the baby’s religion or for that matter for the religion of the parents, or whether or not they were married. The name of the father on the original birth certificate, and the place of birth of course, will be exactly the same as on the new short form birth certificate because these fields on the official birth certificate were filled in by the clerk from the information on the original birth certificate.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Re: “Nor does it address the custom, remote, municipal laws created 60 years after the first federal vital statistics collection standards were enacted.”

    Answer: Mere blather. Hawaii’s birth certificate, both the original and the new short-form, are just as good as any state’s birth certificate, and there is not a shred of evidence that the data collection standards were any lower in Hawaii than in Connecticut or Arkansas.

    Re: “created a necessity to allow Hawaii and its municipality to issue these documents to foreign-born children of non-citizen Hawaiian residents. “

    Answer: Hawaii does not now, and did not in 1961, allow a birth certificate to lie about the place of birth. In 1961 it was not possible to register a child who was born outside of Hawaii AT ALL. If the parents arrived with a foreign birth certificate (or even one from another state), the officials would not allow that document to be entered into the Hawaii files, and they would not allow a Hawaii birth to be registered. ONLY births IN Hawaii were registered (and, yes, they asked for proof, I have evidence of this.)

    Today, now that the law has changed, Hawaii still does not all a birth certificate to lie about the place of birth. Hawaii birth certificates can be issued to persons born outside of Hawaii, if their parents fulfill the Hawaii residency requirements. But, the Hawaii birth certificate must state the actual place of birth. Thus, a child born in New Jersey would get a Hawaii certification of live birth which says something like: ‘Hawaii
    Certification of Live Birth: Place of Birth: New Jersey.” But, Obama’s place of birth is clearly listed as Honolulu, Hawaii---and that is the fact that the officials in Hawaii have confirmed repeatedly.

    Re: “Hawaii also employs AR 93 which allows the Vital Statistics office to declare the "usual residence of the mother the same location as the place of birth, regardless of the actual birth place."

    Answer: As stated previously. The law in Hawaii in 1961 did not allow any such thing. The law today does not allow Hawaii to lie and claim that a person was born in Honolulu unless there was evidence that she or he was born in Honolulu.

    Re: “You obviously accept the Hawaiian cover document. “

    Answer: Not only is it the official birth certificate, but the facts on it were confirmed by three officials, and there is a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii and writing home about it (about the unusual event of a birth to a woman named Stanley, to her father, also named Stanley).

    Re: “the original document, which he confesses to have possessed on page 26 of his autobiography, Dreams From My Father…”

    Answer: Do you understand the difference between HAD and HAS? Yes, his book said that he had seen the original document. But people do lose their original birth certificates, particularly when they travel a lot. I lost mine, and that is why governments maintain birth certificate files. So, in 2007 when Obama needed his birth certificate, he applied to Hawaii to get another, and Hawaii sent him the new, short-form Certification of Live Birth, which is what it has sent out to everyone—even people born before 2001—since it became the official birth certificate in 2001.

    Re: “Besides, I consider congress to be the absolute worst source of authority on this particular matter…”

    Answer: You are fighting the US Constitution, which specifically states that the US Congress must certify the results of the election, and it did. And in that process not one single member of the 535 voted against Obama, meaning that not one of them believed that Obama was born outside of Hawaii.

    You are welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Continuing:

    Re: “Nor does it address the custom, remote, municipal laws created 60 years after the first federal vital statistics collection standards were enacted.”

    Answer: Mere blather. Hawaii’s birth certificate, both the original and the new short-form, are just as good as any state’s birth certificate, and there is not a shred of evidence that the data collection standards were any lower in Hawaii than in Connecticut or Arkansas.

    Re: “created a necessity to allow Hawaii and its municipality to issue these documents to foreign-born children of non-citizen Hawaiian residents. “

    Answer: Hawaii does not now, and did not in 1961, allow a birth certificate to lie about the place of birth. In 1961 it was not possible to register a child who was born outside of Hawaii AT ALL. If the parents arrived with a foreign birth certificate (or even one from another state), the officials would not allow that document to be entered into the Hawaii files, and they would not allow a Hawaii birth to be registered. ONLY births IN Hawaii were registered (and, yes, they asked for proof, I have evidence of this.)

    Today, now that the law has changed, Hawaii still does not all a birth certificate to lie about the place of birth. Hawaii birth certificates can be issued to persons born outside of Hawaii, if their parents fulfill the Hawaii residency requirements. But, the Hawaii birth certificate must state the actual place of birth. Thus, a child born in New Jersey would get a Hawaii certification of live birth which says something like: ‘Hawaii
    Certification of Live Birth: Place of Birth: New Jersey.” But, Obama’s place of birth is clearly listed as Honolulu, Hawaii---and that is the fact that the officials in Hawaii have confirmed repeatedly.

    Re: “Hawaii also employs AR 93 which allows the Vital Statistics office to declare the "usual residence of the mother the same location as the place of birth, regardless of the actual birth place."

    Answer: As stated previously. The law in Hawaii in 1961 did not allow any such thing. The law today does not allow Hawaii to lie and claim that a person was born in Honolulu unless there was evidence that she or he was born in Honolulu.

    Re: “You obviously accept the Hawaiian cover document. “

    Answer: Not only is it the official birth certificate, but the facts on it were confirmed by three officials, and there is a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii and writing home about it (about the unusual event of a birth to a woman named Stanley, to her father, also named Stanley).

    Re: “the original document, which he confesses to have possessed on page 26 of his autobiography, Dreams From My Father…”

    Answer: Do you understand the difference between HAD and HAS? Yes, his book said that he had seen the original document. But people do lose their original birth certificates, particularly when they travel a lot. I lost mine, and that is why governments maintain birth certificate files. So, in 2007 when Obama needed his birth certificate, he applied to Hawaii to get another, and Hawaii sent him the new, short-form Certification of Live Birth, which is what it has sent out to everyone—even people born before 2001—since it became the official birth certificate in 2001.

    Re: “Besides, I consider congress to be the absolute worst source of authority on this particular matter…”

    Answer: You are fighting the US Constitution, which specifically states that the US Congress must certify the results of the election, and it did. And in that process not one single member of the 535 voted against Obama, meaning that not one of them believed that Obama was born outside of Hawaii.

    You are welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In a sense, the snow cover the mountain,rift gold, this year's work will be a paragraph out. Luo Fei faint heart kind of relaxed and sense of relief.rift gold,This feeling was that he did not show up in the face. In fact, when flying in Romania to think when someone is very difficult to try to speculate on

    his face out of his inner thoughts.rift gold, Some of his natural relaxation of facial skin, rift

    gold
    ,which makes his eyes he always looks down, worried look.silkroad gold, Even though he was very pleased with the performance of that smile

    on the face in the mouth is only apparent at two months there hook. silkroad gold,Luo do not understand people will fly and that he cold,

    unapproachable, runes of magic gold,in fact, Luo Fei is a typical Raisin in the Scorpio man.vindictus gold, When dealing with others, usually happens: the other effort may still pondering Luo Fei's attitude,dofus kamas, and Luo Fei

    may already be full to the other side as their friends. Of course,dofus kamas, this person should first character on the fly to get some recognition of

    Romania.

    ReplyDelete