Loretta Nall Joins Phillies Campaign

Loretta Nall, marijuana legalization activist and current Libertarian/write-in candidate for governor of Alabama, has joined the Phillies for President campaign. Nall will apparently serve as the campaign’s Media Coordinator.

Not that I’m at all taking sides on this, but is she aware that Steve Kubby is also running? That seemed like more of a natural fit to me, considering her dedication to the pot-legalization movement.

Anyway, the official press release follows…

Loretta Nall, 32, founder of the United States Marijuana Party, today joined the Phillies 2008 Campaign as Media Coordinator. Nall will play a variety of roles in developing the Phillies 2008 media campaign, building first to the 2008 National Convention and then to Election Day.

Speaking of her decision to support Phillies, Nall said “I am an avid drug policy reformer. Phillies will represent the Libertarian Party and its platform better than his opponents can.”

“I am delighted to have Loretta Nall’s support,” candidate Phillies said. “Nall had a strong, visible campaign for Governor of Alabama, a campaign unfortunately frustrated by Alabama’s harsh ballot access laws. I look forward to her work for Phillies 2008.”

39 Responses to “Loretta Nall Joins Phillies Campaign”

  1. George Phillies Says:

    Since you ask, Loretta Nall was entirely aware that Steve Kubby was running at the time that she came on board on my campaign. SHe wrote: ” Despite being an avid pot smoker and drug policy reformer I feel that George would better represent the LP in DC…”

    Yours for Liberty,

    George Phillies
    http://www.phillies2008.org

  2. Joey Dauben Says:

    No offense, but that wasn’t exactly the most credible hire for a national presidential campaign.

  3. Matt Sterba Says:

    With this clear-minded individual on board, Phillies can’t fail.

  4. Nigel Watt Says:

    How is Loretta Nall not credible?

  5. George Phillies Says:

    Since the question of hires has arisen, I shall simply note that my campaign is only paying two people: The Webmaster (Seth Cohn) and the Treasurer (previously Sean Haugh, now Carol McMahon).

    A successful libertarian campaign is built pre-eminently on volunteer suppotr volunteers contributing available time and their talents and contacts to a move in the desired direction. Nall is going to be developing media of various sorts, which she has done historically in the past.

  6. Jackcjackson Says:

    “How is Loretta Nall not credible?”

    She is not credible to conservative Republicans who fancy themselves as libertarians.

  7. Rob Says:

    Yeah, being soundly rejected for LP Chair certainly makes one worthy of obtaining the LP nomination for President…

    Not.

  8. Joey Dauben Says:

    It’s like NORML running for president.

    Great as a single-issue position or as a legislative affairs director, but come on, it’s like kissing babies, flipping pancakes, and smoking out.

    Not exactly the most credible presidential race.

    But I’m just an observer…

  9. Doug Craig Says:

    Joey who would you like to run for president under the libertarian banner?
    Right now George Phillies has his act to gether more than any other candidate. I believe our problems in the past has come from the lack of pre planning on major campaigns.George is actually planning ahead this time.Joey we need people to help on campaigns so if any one is reading this and would like to work on a campaign please contact me or your state party or the national party thanks hankreardan@yahoo.com

  10. George Phillies Says:

    For those of you who are curious, my actual major issues include:

    End the war on Iraq, bring the troops home, and secure our borders.
    Protect civil liberties, with systematic criminal prosecution of all Federal employees who committed crimes such as warrantless wiretapping.
    End the grandchild tax, the Federal budget deficit that means your children pay for your spending.
    Improve Education: Repeal NCLB. A Federal tax credit for educating children without creating a tax burden
    Energy and the Environment: The Federal government should, over time, contract for enough renewable energy in the form of fixed-price contracts to match its energy consumption.

    These are a bit different than what Mr. Dausen seems to have inferred.

    George Phillies
    http://www.phillies2008.org

  11. Jake Porter Says:

    It’s like NORML running for president.

    It is not like George Phillies is a drug user, and we are asking the voters to give him control over all the nuclear weapons in the country.

    Not exactly the most credible presidential race.

    I would say the Phillies campaign has proved to be very credible by creating radio ads for any Libertarian candidate to use, and helping develop Liberty For America, the Libertarian answer to Daily Kos.

  12. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    That Loretta Nall “feel[s] that George would better represent the LP in DC” is fairly obvious (she wouldn’t have signed on to his campaign if she didn’t feel that way, right?). It is not, however, an answer to the question posed. It’s just another phrasing of the statement which gave rise to the question. The question is “WHY does Loretta Nall feel that George would better represent the LP in DC?”

    I’m interested in the answer to that question myself.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  13. R. Paul Says:

    I keep waiting for a libertarian to declare for the LP nomination in ‘06.

    Someone posed the question as to who should run as the LP candidate for president.

    Who shouldn’t declare: computer wonks; alleged or self-described “constitutional scholars”; assorted border-patrol jingoist conservatives; or, party “reformers”.

    Who should declare (but probably wouldn’t) Professor Randy E. Barnett – arguably the best professional expositor of libertarian ideas on the planet. Argued the Raisch case from a “federalism” perspective. Prolific author. Etd., etc., etc.

  14. R. Paul Says:

    Sorry, mistype . . . meant ‘08.

  15. Otto Kerner Says:

    Loretta Nall lacks credibility because … she was actually surprised that the guards at her local prison did a bad job. I was totally flummoxed by her famous article. If I have an interaction with a CO in which he refrains from beating me senseless and/or deliberately locking me in with convicted rapists, I consider that relatively palatable.

  16. Stuart Richards Says:

    For those of you who are curious, my actual major issues include:

    End the war on Iraq, bring the troops home, and secure our borders.
    Protect civil liberties, with systematic criminal prosecution of all Federal employees who committed crimes such as warrantless wiretapping.
    End the grandchild tax, the Federal budget deficit that means your children pay for your spending.
    Improve Education: Repeal NCLB. A Federal tax credit for educating children without creating a tax burden
    Energy and the Environment: The Federal government should, over time, contract for enough renewable energy in the form of fixed-price contracts to match its energy consumption.

    This… actually sounds really credible. No blathering on about the Liberty Dollar or the drug war, you’re addressing issues that matter to voters.

    What’s your position on immigration? That’s the only potential hole I see in your platform.

  17. Nigel Watt Says:

    Amazing, isn’t it, how the candidates who seem most credible at the moment (George Phillies, Bob Smither, Mike Kole) are those who aren’t into the whole reformers v. purists thing? They just have opinions which fit somewhere within the libertarian realm, and they’re operating functional campaigns. Maybe that’s a sign that y’all who are so obsessed with the “rift” should chill out and get some politics done.

  18. Seth Cohn Says:

    Disclaimer first: as George mentions, I’m paid to work on his campaign website. Please note, though, that I also currently webmaster for Barry Hess (AZ Governor race) & Bob Smither (CD TX-22 race), among other political clients, and they cover a wide spectrum of positions.

    Nigel’s comment is very accurate: the most credible candidates are usually the ones taking realistic approaches, and not merely philosophical ones. Funny though, how many of the complaints raised (here and elsewhere, like HammerOfTruth) focus on philosophical arguments and often insist on a particular solution being proposed or vice versa, the complete elimination of that solution from a platform… “Forget the 95% I agree with you on, that 5% of your views that I dislike has cost you my support!”

    I find it interesting that folks are getting negative about Nall being involved… she’s NOT running for President herself, so lay off the attacks on her, please. She’s pledged her media-savvy skills to help George. She’s now involved in a campaign, as will likely dozens of others in either George’s run for 2008 or someone else’s run in 2008. Everyone will find someone they support and back them with time, energy, or (most important) financially. Nall has made her choice, and it was George. Yes, over Kubby, Stanhope, or other announced candidates so far… she made her choice and that says something.

    As for Thom Knapp’s question of ‘Why?’, I’ll reverse it and ask ‘Why Not?’ What is it that she doesn’t see in the other candidates that she was looking for in someone to back? Vision? Electability? Debate Skills? Organization? Credentials? Understanding of how the LP electoral process works?
    Watching the field grow, I see many who lack different combinations of these. It’s up to each of us to decide for ourselves who and what to look for in a candidate.

    I’ll close with my own choice for a trait that I personally value: an understanding of Strategy. George has, by his own reckoning, one of the largest strategy board game collections. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a President again, for once, who knows how to win battles, on or off the field of war, thru diplomacy, tactics, and all of the other elements you learn from playing games like those. I know I’d feel safer with him in the Pentagon War Room, than the current bunch in there now. (And yes, if you mentally pictured the scene from Dr. Strangelove, that bothers me too.)

  19. Chris Moore Says:

    “Forget the 95% I agree with you on, that 5% of your views that I dislike has cost you my support!”

    Some people place more priority on certain issues. I can agree with a candidate on 99% of the issues, but if that candidate supports the Iraq War, or any unprovoked war, then I will not support that candidate with money or time. Bob Smither finally has a position on the war prominently placed on his website. I like it. I hate the FairTax, but it’s not a big priority for me. I sent him some money today because we agree on the issues that matter most to me.

    As for George Phillies, I can’t say that I have ever disagreed fundementally with any political position he has ever taken. He’s one hell of a libertarian. As far as being a Presidential candidate, I’m not sure yet. He is organized, obviously. But I’m not sure he has the charisma of Kubby or even Nall. Is he a smart guy? Certainly. Is he capable of running the government? You bet. Is he the guy that can reach the largest audience? I don’t know.

  20. Stuart Richards Says:

    Hmm… I was in the Stanhope corner but now I’m not sure. Either Stanhope or Phillies would make a really good candidate. We’re really lucky this year to have two really strong candidates.

  21. Jake Porter Says:

    In my opinion, when Libertarians nominate a Presidential candidate, they must nominate someone who the American people can trust. The job of President is very serious, and the American people understand this responsibility.

    The Presidential candidate must be well organized. If you fail to have organization, your campaign will most likely fail. I like to think that if Ross Perot would have declared his interesting in running for President earlier, he could have possibly won.

    I also like to think that the main purpose of the Libertarian Party running a Presidential candidate is to strengthen Libertarian candidates. George Phillies has already started doing that by the radio ads on his website, any Libertarian candidate can use. George has also helped create the Libertarian response to Daily Kos.

    When I volunteered for the Phillies campaign, I did so (only a day, or two after he announced) because the ideas presented on his campaign page. After I volunteered, I only expected to give his website a temporary update which I did until Seth Cohn got the new, and much improved one up, but I have continued to do volunteer work for the campaign at no cost. The reason I do this is to have a strong campaign organized for 2008. We cannot wait until two weeks before the election to be organized. The winning campaign must be ready to start as soon as they are nominated.

  22. Chris Moore Says:

    My only concern about Phillies is can he grow the party? He seems to lack the charisma and persuasion of, say, Harry Browne, and the enthusiasm of, say, Michael Badnarik.

    I think he could be a good candidate if the LP had a major party base and any chance of actually winning. But there is no way a Libertarian will be president in 2009. His organization is impressive, but does he have the fundraising capabilities and “star” power needed to bring new people to the LP? I’m not sure yet.

  23. paulie cannoli Says:

    Very disappointed in this. Steve Kubby would have been a much better choice.

    Still waiting for an explanation of this on Phillies’ website:

    http://www.phillies2008.com/phillies_on_immigration

    Phillies)However, Americans are entitled to the certainty that their country’s just laws will be enforced until those laws are changed.

    paul) Those are not just laws.

    Phillies)Americans who quote the Statue of Liberty’s message ‘Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free’ should remember that it was written when France, Germany and Russia were autocratic monarchies. The huddled masses of Europe now breathe free.

    paul) For starters, I’m not so sure that the masses of Europe are free, but if they, so what? What of the rest of the world? Is Phillies a white supremacist?

    Phillies)When Americans want open borders, they will tell Congress to vote for open borders.

    paul) Since when do libertarian principles depend on majoritarianism?

    Phillies) Until then, a Libertarian President who has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution will protect and defend the laws on border crossings.

    paul) Not that it matters much, but the constitution grants the regime no such power. The portion that has been interpreted to say it does actually was written in regards to the slave trade. No one thought to apply it to immigration until much later.

    Phillies) George Bush has created many enemies for America. Keeping them from coming here to injure our children and grandchildren must remain a top-priority issue for the foreseeable future.

    paul) Bush is himself the greatest enemy of America. He hates us for our freedom, and that is why he bombed the twin towers. The regime can no more keep “illegal” immigrants out than it can keep “illegal” drugs out.

    Phillies)Foreign Workers – All too often, we hear claims that we must import foreign workers because Americans won’t do those jobs. ‘Those jobs’ are hard, physically demanding, outdoor work that require constant, careful attention to detail. Those jobs should be receiving a wage premium, not be barely-minimum-wage sources of employment. If those jobs paid that premium, there would be Americans available to do them. Mr. Bush’s foreign guest worker scheme is a corporate welfare deal at the expense of the American worker.

    paul) How about the American consumer? Mr Phillies’ border control scheme is a labor welfare deal at the expense of the
    American consumer, which hurts American workers in the long run.

    Professors Phillies knows physics, but apparently not economics.

    As John Lopez points out at no-treason

    =============================

    “Borders = Liberty”. And whose borders are they, Mr. Rockwell?

    No one here is agitating against private property, much as the LRC’ers seem convinced of that. However, the “borders” of the United States are most assuredly not “private property”. “The Government” doesn’t rightfully own anything: not roads, not rivers, not borders. So by what right can government agents keep the US’s borders closed?

    Hoppe, on the other hand, would have us act as if the government were the rightful owner of the United States: “The best one may hope for, …is that the democratic rulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country and as if they had to decide who to include and who to exclude from their own personal property.”

    And why should this apply just to immigration? After all, the “personal owner” of a plot of land may wish to charge rent for it. He might also wish to restrict the activities of those who rent from him. If we accept the premise that the State should act as the personal owners of the country, how can we argue against taxation or drug prohibition? The State is either to act as the rightful owner or not. If it does, then the best argument that can be mustered against government depredation is “love it or leave it”. Don’t like living in America? Fine: give notice and get your stuff out.

    LRC and Hoppe can’t consistently advocate liberty and at the same time wish for the State to act like the “personal owner” of all of the land. They can’t eat their cake and then have it, too.

  24. Stuart Richards Says:

    I can just picture this scene down at Phillies campaign HQ:

    PORTER: “Let’s see here, sir, we’ve got a few media hits today.”
    NALL: “Yep, sure do… count ‘em, Hammer of Truth, a few local papers, Third Party Watch…”
    PORTER: “Wait, check this out.” points to screen
    PHILLIES: “What is it?”
    NALL: “There’s some guy, uh, Paulie Cannoli, and he’s telling us how we’re wrong on our issues.”
    PHILLIES: reads
    PHILLIES: “My GOD! This man is absolutely right! Quick, take down the website before another poor soul can be misguided by our wayward, unlibertarian ways! We have been campaigning on all the wrong issues!”
    PORTER: “And to think of all the people that would have voted for us if ONLY we would have taken a more hardline anarcho-capitalist stance…” sobs
    NALL: “We can only hope that adopting the unabridged works of Murray Rothbard as our platform will be enough to save our efforts now.”
    PHILLIES: “Well…” sighs, hat in hand “I only pray that all the good people of America, with their hardcore anarchistic ways, can forgive us for such a lapse of plain common sense.”

    Yep. I’m sure that’s exactly what’s happening with them right now. Fine work, Paulie. :)

  25. paulie cannoli Says:

    Perhaps you can explain this then:

    Phillies)Americans who quote the Statue of Liberty’s message ‘Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free’ should remember that it was written when France, Germany and Russia were autocratic monarchies. The huddled masses of Europe now breathe free.

    paul) For starters, I’m not so sure that the masses of Europe are free, but if they, so what? What of the rest of the world? Is Phillies a white supremacist?

    I’ll be happy to have anyone who cares to explain this to me. You, the campaign….doesn’t really matter.

    I’m still endorsing Kubby and am disappointed that Loretta isn’t. That’s really too bad she’s on the wrong team on this one.

    In completely unrelated news, are you involved with the Nebraska LP? We’re going to be petitioning over there and need some contact info for who to get the petition sheets from….preferably phone numbers not just email.

    -p

  26. Stuart Richards Says:

    Umm, Nebraska LP… you know, I shot them off an email a longass time ago and never got a reply back.

    If you guys are gonna be in the vicinity of Chadron, email me at princepsaugustus@hotmail.com and I can hook you up with free room and board while you’re doing your work. :)

  27. paulie cannoli Says:

    They’re actually reimbursing our motels, I think…if not I might take you up on it, thanks! Either way I would be up for a beer or whatever if we roll through out that way.

    As for the LP there they are hard to get a hold of. All the contact info they have on the site is email addresses and apparently they’re not too into answering those. Kohlhaas apparently hasn’t had much luck getting a hold of them either and he’s the one doing the fundraising to get us out there. Plus he’s worked Nebraska before so they should know who he is…

  28. Stuart Richards Says:

    Well, I hope it’s successful. Chadron’s on the far western edge of the state, the exact opposite side from Omaha and Lincoln where all the people are. But yeah, even if you’re just passing through, stop in and we can hang out. That’d rock.

  29. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Quoth Seth Cohn:

    “As for Thom Knapp’s question of ‘Why?’, I’ll reverse it and ask ‘Why Not?’ What is it that she doesn’t see in the other candidates that she was looking for in someone to back? Vision? Electability? Debate Skills? Organization? Credentials? Understanding of how the LP electoral process works?”

    I like George Phillies. I consider him a friend. But let’s get one thing out of the way: A Massachusetts physics professor and local ACLU leader who has never previously been elected to public office is not “electable” to the presidency of the United States, even if he was running on a major party ticket. You might wish differently; I might, too. Wishing, however, will not make it so.

    So far, “electability” isn’t even on the table. The American electorate will not be send a Massachusetts physics professor—or a California drug activist, an Arizona comedian, a Colorado philanthropist and model, a Texas tax activist who thinks he’s Gandhi, a New Jersey leftie who thinks the Greens and LP should all gather round the campfire and sing Kum Ba Ya while talking about building a border fence and partitioning Iraq to attract “moderates,” or a Texas former computer programmer turned constitution teacher—to the Oval Office in 2008. Get over it.

    Having never seen Steve Kubby debate, I can’t speak to the relative quality of his debate skills versus those of Dr. Phillies.

    With respect to “understanding of the LP electoral process,” all we can look at is past results: Over the course of four campaigns for LP chair, Dr. Phillies has managed to garner, at his high point, the support of a little over 20% of convention delegates. In one campaign for the LP’s vice-presidential nomination, Kubby has managed to drive to a second ballot and garner the support of 45% of convention delegates. I wouldn’t say that this proves that Kubby “understands the LP electoral process” better than Phillies, but neither does it prove the reverse.

    I’ve pretty much wrapped “credentials” into “electability” already, but it bears a little more examination:

    None of the thus-far-declared candidates has, to the best of my knowledge, ever been elected to any public office. None of the thus-far-declared candidates has, to the best of my knowledge, has ever been appointed to any public office. None of the thus-far-declared candidates has, to the best of my knowledge, ever generaled a US army to victory on the field of battle. Does anyone care to name those among the 43 previous presidents who were elected without having previously done one of those things? Never mind, I will: [This Space Intentionally Left Blank].

    That leaves “organization” and “vision.” While Dr. Phillies has thus far excelled his opponents in terms of organization and, possibly by virtue of his early entry more clearly articulated his vision, it’s rather early in the campaign to conclude that this will remain so.

    Which leaves the question still unanswered: Why does Loretta Nall prefer Phillies to Kubby? Since Nall just sent a message to her mailing list under the heading “Why Phillies, not Kubby?” with a link pointing back to this article, I had hoped to find an actual, substantive answer. If a media coordinator can’t explain why he or she supports his or her candidate of choice, how can anyone else be expected to understand why THEY should also support that candidate?

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  30. Dick Clark Says:

    Tom,

    Actually, the email to which you refer was sent by Paul Frankel, as far as I can tell fom the sender’s email address.

    Dick Clark

  31. paulie cannoli Says:

    Tom,

    Loretta didn’t send it.

    I sent that as a question to Loretta.

  32. paulie cannoli Says:

    BTW Tom are you working on Kubby’s campaign? I would like to work on it.
    I talked to Doug Scribner about it the other day but I don’t know if it was passed on or not. Maybe we can get Kubby the BTP nomination and get the BTP on the ballot in case the LP shoots itself in the foot again? I might even do it volunteer (so long as I have paying work in the stack) as a hedge against a Phillies or, God forbid, Boortz candidacy. Of course money would be nice but it doesn’t seem to be part of BTP’s gameplan….

    -p

  33. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Paulie,

    Thanks for clearing that up—I thought the message was from Loretta herself.

    You write: “Tom are you working on Kubby’s campaign?”

    I am not working on any campaign. I have not endorsed a candidate for the LP’s (or BTP’s) 2008 presidential nomination, nor have I decided whom, if anyone, I will support or in what manner.

    I have corresponded with, and to some minimal extent advised (read: spouted my loudmouth opinions to), several candidates, including George Phillies, Steve Kubby, Robert Milnes and Kent McManigal. I would not, however, elevate any of that to the level of “campaign work.”

    The last time around, I “changed horses” in mid-campaign for what I thought were good reasons. I don’t regret that decision, but I also don’t intend to do that this time. Once I pick a candidate, that’s who I’m with through the nomination (either as a plain-vanilla supporter or, if they think I’ll be an asset, volunteer or campaign staff).

    It’s still very early in the race. I think we’ll see a few more entrances after November, and maybe one or two toward the end of 2007 if things don’t look too locked up by then. Probably some dropouts or at least “lights are on but nobody’s home” campaigns, too.

    What I’m doing right now is gathering information and considering the options available —and since I respect Loretta Nall’s opinion, and assume that she has good reasons of her own for choosing to work on George’s campaign versus supporting Steve, I’d like to hear those reasons. They may very well affect my own judgment of who will win the nomination and/or who should win it.

    Regards,
    Tom

  34. undercover_anarchist Says:

    When George Phillies outlined his major campaign issues in this thread, he forgot about his racist, nationalist, Marxist views on trade and immigration. First Nall endorses that genocidal freak from Alabama (what was his name??) and now the “Libertarian” defender of white privelage. Quite a resume.

    Doug Stanhope is the only candidate worth nominating. But here’s a prediction I guarantee to come true: The coming nomination process will be incredibly divisive. It will make the ‘04 race look like a consensus. Will the dominant Republican wing of the LP ever support Stanhope? Can you imagine the throngs of LPers who will not get behind Phillies no matter what? I guess Steve Kubby is the “consensus” choice – i.e. the one who will garner less than 1% of the vote, finish 5th, and be like every other worthless candidate in the LP’s history.

  35. undercover_anarchist Says:

    By the way, I have to comment on an ad I just saw here after posting…

    “Do you think Bush should lower gas prices?”

    This is the mentality of the American people.

    We are fucking doomed. Who cares about the LP nomination or anything at all when the world is this stupid.

    I’m changing my name to undercover_nilhist_(sp?)

  36. paulie cannoli Says:

    I have no idea why you would say that about Kubby, and Loretta withdrew her endorsement of Darby after it came out that he is a racist. Hew was her lawyer in getting her kids from being taken by the state over less than a gram of pot, and they were both involved in marijuana law reform and atheism – Darby was the head of Alabama atheists. He also used to be a Libertarian. I knew him back in 2002 and while he was definitely weird, he never made his racist views public if he held any back then. So we were all surprised when he came out this year as a rabid racist anti-semite. More recently he has (or has claimed to have) converted to Christianity. I believe he is mentally unbalanced.

    I believe Kubby has the potential of changing the LP away from its Republican tilt. He also is someone who is not afraid to engage to speak from the heart and engage in civil disobedience, just like Loretta, and unlike Phillies, who is very boring (and a little creepy) in person and constantly puts people down for resisting tax extortion, not using an SSN, not submitting to state driver licensing and other such forms of resistance to state tyranny. I believe he is also a rabid partisan of the 19 Arabs with boxcutters conspiracy theory og 9/11. His immigration views I’ve already commented, but I haven’t seen his trade views – is he a protectionist too?

    I don’t know enough about Stanhope’s views to say a whole lot yet, but Eric Dondero likes him, which is a strike against him.

  37. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    undercover_anarchist,

    You write: “Doug Stanhope is the only candidate worth nominating.”

    You keep saying that, but I haven’t seen anything convincing to back it up. Lay it out for us. What will Doug Stanhope do besides “garner less than 1% of the vote, finish 5th, and be like every other worthless candidate in the LP’s history?”

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  38. rape Says:

    rape

    news

  39. mike18 lzek Says:

    Are the days that she brings
    free mike18 video*
    Truly said Flemming to the Baron as they wended their way

Leave a Reply