Think Progress

Bush’s Unconventional Porn Crackdown

By Judd Legum on Jun 17th, 2005 at 6:45 pm

Bush’s Unconventional Porn Crackdown»

Just three days after President Bush enlisted porn star Mary Carey and pornographer Mark Kulkis to help him raise $23 million, I was surprised to receive this message from Family Research Council President Tony Perkins:

I just met with Attorney General Gonzales and right now he is launching a major effort to prosecute the porn industry. He intends to smash these criminal enterprises on the Internet and elsewhere with a special new obscenity strike force.

The first step to crippling the porn industry: drain their resources by encouraging large political contributions.

Comments
57

57 Responses to “Bush’s Unconventional Porn Crackdown”

Jon Says:

From “The Culture of Strife”:

Across the nation this week, the Republican Party and its amen corner unleashed a tidal wave of dangerously irresponsible interventions into the most personal and intimate aspects of Americans’ private lives. Whether they will pay a political price for their increasingly extreme - and unpopular - positions remains to be seen.

Let’s begin in Madison, Wisconsin, where the state assembly voted to ban the distribution and use of the “morning after” pill on state campuses.

In Florida, Governor Jeb Bush decided to extend his perverse intervention in the Terri Schiavo tragedy by calling for a new inquiry into her 1990 collapse.

Up in Massachusetts, Governor and obvious 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney continued his sharp right turn by announcing his support for a state constitutional ban on both same-sex marriage and civil unions.

And in the heartland, the Iowa Supreme Court today ruled against three state legislators and the Iowa Family Policy Center and let stand a lower court decision dissolving a civil union between two women.

For the shocking details, see:

“The Culture of Strife”
June 17th, 2005 at 7:47 pm
lib Says:

You progressives are so serious.
June 17th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
Flamethrower Says:

those guys really are daft if they still believe the shit Bush is peddling them.
June 17th, 2005 at 7:58 pm
Susan Says:

Who enjoys porn?

Who solicits porn?

Which party has the most sex scandals in the past 4 years?

The pug party.

if you can prove I’m wrong, have at it. My money is on me.
June 17th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
Skid Says:

Would Gannon’s sites be considered?
June 17th, 2005 at 8:14 pm
Susan Says:

Gannon’s sites can be considered only if the type of porn we are addressing is “hooker porn”.
June 17th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
John the Elder Says:

Repug hypocrisy knows no bounds! It sound like that old cannard…”Do as I say, not as I do.”
and “It is only a lie if I (Bush)say it is a lie.” It is reaching the point where even hell itself won’t be a fitting place for this crew.
June 17th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
neil Says:

why doesnt the frc enable you to contact them by email,,,so that you can send them a copy of the wonderful photographs of Ms Carey at the recent Bush fundraiser and mention to them her comments about desiring sex with the bush twins jenna and barbara…they are gutless
June 17th, 2005 at 8:59 pm
The WB42 5:30 Report With Doug Krile Says:

Friday Night Update
Just a couple of updates for Friday, June 17, 2005. All part of the WB42 5:30 Report on KWBF in Little Rock, AR
June 17th, 2005 at 10:03 pm
just jack Says:

I just tried to jam the FRC action campaign by altering their preset email but alas, these gutless proto-fascists do not allow one to modify the text of the email nor the subject line (like progressive sites allow). Have to just email congress on my own and support the .XXX domains.
June 17th, 2005 at 10:32 pm
Susan Says:

Personally I enjoy porn between women, but not men. It is a natural thing. I’ts high time we have legalized marriage for women gays as well as men. IMPEACH BUSH now and get someone in there who will legalize gay marriage. I am serious. Call your congressman if you know him and complain. I do. It will change things. You will see.
June 17th, 2005 at 11:39 pm
Ron Says:

ban porn in the barnyard… in the cow pastures… in the pig pens… in the chicken coops… go after whales in the ocean depths… ban strippers in Nevada from becoming judges.

Go after mountain sheep in the high mountain wilderness. Sex on earth must be brought to a halt.
June 17th, 2005 at 11:56 pm
jackass Says:

On the May 9, 2005, edition of the Alan Colmes Show on talk radio, Alan Colmes asked Horsley about allegations he had had sex with animals:

NH (laughing): “Just because it’s printed in the media, people jump to believe it.”
AC: “Is it true?”
NH: “Hey, Alan, if you want to accuse me of having sex when I was a fool, I did everything that crossed my mind that looked like I…”
AC: “You had sex with animals?”
NH: “Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule.”
AC: “I’m not so sure that that is so.”
NH: “You didn’t grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?”
AC: “Are you suggesting that everybody who grows up on a farm in Georgia has a mule as a girlfriend?”
NH: It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from the reality… Welcome to domestic life on the farm…You experiment with anything that moves when you are growing up sexually. You’re naive. You know better than that… If it’s warm and it’s damp and it vibrates you might in fact have sex with it.”

Horsely website’s also includes a graphic of himself standing behind a mule with a caption above him reading “If God would make homosexuals to have anal intercourse, Why not Me and This Cutie?” The website also has a rambling essay written by Horsely on the topic of “Terri Shiavo” (sic)Ã¢â‚¬â€presumably a misspelling of Terri Schiavo, as well as a copy of the statement of Eric Rudolph upon his plea agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Horsley
June 18th, 2005 at 1:55 am
mule Says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Horsley
June 18th, 2005 at 1:55 am
rush jimbob Says:

“God bless the GOP and the mule it rode in on” - Horsley
June 18th, 2005 at 3:26 am
Ron Says:

WASHINGTON, June 16 /U.S. Newswire/ — House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner,
Jr. (R-Wis.) delivered the following remarks on the House floor regarding a question of personal
privilege:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to false, misleading, and malicious allegations that have
been made by Members of this House and reported by the media concerning the conduct of the
Judiciary Committee’s June 10 hearing on the “Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act” and my
consideration of the PATRIOT Act as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Since becoming Chairman of the Committee in January, 2001, I have consistently demonstrated a
commitment to fair and equitable consideration of issues before the Committee. Perhaps no other
issue better demonstrates this commitment than the Committee’s response to the tragic events of
September 11, 2001.

Shortly following the attacks, I called a Committee hearing to consider draft anti-terrorism
legislation at which the Attorney General and other top officials at the Department of Justice
testified. At this meeting, I pledged to work with the minority to draft bipartisan legislation to
help detect, deter, and defeat terrorist threats to our Nation’s security. Since this time, the
record clearly demonstrates that I have kept my word by conducting bipartisan and even-handed
consideration of this crucial issue.

In October of 2001, the Committee unanimously approved the PATRIOT Act by a vote of 36-0. I was
enormously proud of this vote, because it proved that a Committee comprising sharply diverging
viewpoints could speak in a clear and united voice on an issue of overriding importance to the
security, safety, and liberty of all Americans.

When drafting this legislation, I also insisted that provisions expanding the scope of Federal
authority be subject to congressional reauthorization. I included sunsets on these provision
because I strongly believe that Congress must play an active and continuing role in ensuring that
the PATRIOT Act protects the safety and security of all Americans, while preserving the freedom
and liberty that distinguish us as Americans.

To ensure that the PATRIOT Act is being implemented in a manner that reflects the priorities of
Congress, on multiple occasions Ranking Member Conyers and I have sent detailed, extensive, and
bipartisan inquiries to the Department of Justice concerning the implementation of this
legislation. When the Justice Department did not fully respond to one set of detailed inquiries, I
forcefully asserted the Committee’s prerogatives by raising the possibility of a Committee
subpoena to obtain the requested information.

The Committee has conducted several hearings on matters related to the PATRIOT Act, at which
senior Administration officials have testified. At my request, Committee Members have also
received briefings on the implementation of the PATRIOT Act from senior law enforcement officials.

On March 28, 2005, Ranking Member Conyers and I jointly announced a series of hearings on the
reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. We made this announcement in the same spirit of bipartisanship
that has typified the Committee’s consideration of this issue since the Committee’ first hearing
on this subject in September of 2001.

While the primary focus of this series of hearings has been to examine provisions in the PATRIOT
Act that are set to expire at the end of this year, the scope of these hearings has been broadened
to include provisions of the PATRIOT Act that will not sunset, and issues that are only
tangentially related to the PATRIOT Act have also received formal Committee consideration at the
request of the minority.

The record clearly proves that I have worked in a bipartisan manner to ensure that the Committee
has received testimony from an array of knowledgeable witnesses of diverging view points, and that
Members had ample opportunity to address questions to each of them.

By scheduling 12 hearings on reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act during this Congress, in addition
to the bipartisan record established in previous Congresses, I have proven my commitment to
conducting rigorous and comprehensive oversight of the implementation of the PATRIOT Act. Since
commencing this latest series of oversight hearings in April of this year, the top two officials
at the Justice Department - Attorney General Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Comey - have
testified before the Committee on separate occasions. In each of the additional nine recent
hearings held on this subject, the minority was allowed to designate at least one - and sometimes
two - of the customary four witnesses at Committee hearings, thus providing a consistent platform
for additional and often dissenting viewpoints.

The record clearly demonstrates that this Committee has engaged in a thorough, comprehensive, and
bipartisan review of the PATRIOT Act since its passage. Assertions to the contrary are not only
unfounded, they are plainly false, misleading, and malicious.

On June 8, 2005, the Committee held a hearing on the the “Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act,”
at which Deputy Attorney General Comey testified. At the commencement of this hearing, without
previous notice or consultation, Ranking Member Conyers and other minority Members of the
Committee requested additional witnesses to testify before the Committee on the “Reauthorization
of the USA PATRIOT Act” pursuant to House Rules.

House Rule XI(2)(j)(1) states: “Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or
matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chairman by a
majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority
to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.” I
complied with this request and scheduled an additional hearing on “Reauthorization of the USA
PATRIOT Act” on June 10, 2005.

At the outset of this hearing, I reminded Members and witnesses of the permissible scope of the
hearing requested by the minority under House Rule XI by stating: “(I)t is the chair’s intention
to limit the scope of the hearing to the topic that was chosen by the Democratic minority that
called this hearing and chose the witnesses, which is the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Members and witnesses are advised that questions and testimony not falling within the subject
matter of the hearing chosen by the Democrats will not be included in the hearing record, pursuant
to House Rule XI.”

After reviewing the testimony of the witnesses, I again expressed my concern stating that, “I am
disturbed that some of the testimony that has been presented in written form by the witnesses
today are far outside the scope of the hearing, which the Democratic minority called and which
they set in their letter.”

Notwithstanding repeated reminders and admonishments concerning the permissible scope of the
hearing under House Rules, Ranking Member Conyers and other Members of the minority invited
witnesses to provide testimony and made statements clearly outside the scope of the
reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.

For example, in his opening remarks, Mr. Conyers stated: “For many of us, this process of hearings
is not merely about the extension of 16 expiring provisions that sunset in the PATRIOT Act, but it
is about the manner in which our government uses its legal authority to prosecute the war against
terror both domestically and abroad. And as we hear from our witnesses today, I think we will
demonstrate that much of this authority has been abused.”

My repeated admonishments and reminders about House Rules concerning the permissible scope of the
hearing were ignored by witnesses and Members of the Committee. In the face of this refusal by
witnesses and Members to appropriately conform their testimony to the subject matter of the
hearing requested by the minority, I exercised great patience in permitting witnesses and Members
to weigh in on issues totally unrelated to the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. I recognized
all four witnesses, as well as each majority and minority Member present at the hearing for five
minutes. The record clearly shows that I evinced no favoritism in providing time to either
witnesses or Members.

At the conclusion of the hearing, when each witness and Member had been provided equal time to
raise questions, and witnesses asked and received permission to submit their complete testimony
into the hearing record, I expressed my great disappointment that opponents of the PATRIOT Act
have used it as a vehicle to assert broad, sweeping, and sometimes wildly unsubstantiated
allegations concerning matters totally unrelated to the legislation.

As I concluded my remarks, at least two minority Members who had been accorded their time to speak
again sought recognition, and I adjourned the hearing in a manner inconsistent with the spirit of
comity that has and should continue to inform Committee deliberations. While I concede this point
without qualification, Members should also be aware that the practice of Democratic Chairmen of
the Judiciary Committee, as well as the practice of Ranking Member Conyers during his Chairmanship
of the Committee on Government Operations, was to adjourn hearings without motion and without
expressly seeking the unanimous consent of Committee Members.

Since this hearing, I have been unfairly characterized by several Members of this body. In a press
release dated June 10, 2005, Minority Leader Pelosi stated:

“Chairman Sensenbrenner proved again today that he is afraid of ideas, and that Republicans will
stop at nothing to silence Democrats and the voice of the minority, to deny millions of Americans
a voice in Congress. Republicans are unwilling and unable to compete in the marketplace of ideas,
so they have chosen to arbitrarily and capriciously abuse their power simply because they can.”

In a similar statement, Minority Whip Hoyer stated that the Committee’s June 10, 2005 hearing
represented a “quintessential example of shutting up, shutting down opposition, dissenting views,
democracy.” This grossly unfair and distorted depiction of my conduct demands correction. I am not
afraid of diverse ideas - I welcome them. I have never attempted to stifle democracy - and never
will.

The Committee’s bipartisan consideration of the PATRIOT Act under my leadership underscores the
malice that motivates these accusations. There is a difference between spirited debate and
partisan vitriol that transgresses the bounds of decency and maligns the integrity of a Member of
this House.

Following the hearing, the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz, the newest Member of
the Judiciary Committee, issued a press release asserting that I had acted in an “illegal” manner
under a headline stating: “Democracy thwarted at Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Patriot Act.”
In the course of this hearing, I did nothing that remotely resembles conduct that could be
described as “illegal,” and as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I take particular
umbrage with this mischaracterization.

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler has also contended that I Chaired the hearing in a manner
that was “with an attitude of total hostility.” In addition, it has been inaccurately reported
that I “abruptly pulled the plug . . . when a hearing on the PATRIOT Act turned to prisoners and
anti-immigration militia on the Mexican border.” These statements are clearly false. I permitted
each witness an opportunity to complete his or her oral remarks, and the hearing was concluded
only when each Member had been provided an equal opportunity to speak.

Following this hearing, I met with Ranking Member Conyers to discuss ways in which the Committee
could respond to concerns expressed by some Members of the minority, and we reached a resolution
that might have averted this impasse. However, some in the minority preferred a political issue to
a workable solution. I trust that by fully and fairly examining the record of the June 10 hearing,
as well as my demonstrated, longstanding record of bipartisan consideration of matters relating to
the PATRIOT Act and other issues before the Committee, Members of this House and the public at
large will reject the false, malevolent, and derogatory allegations leveled against me by certain
minority Members of this body.

Mr. Speaker, the American people expect and deserve Members of Congress to approach
terrorism-prevention in a thoughtful, factual, and responsible manner. All too often, opponents of
the PATRIOT Act have constructed unfounded and totally unrelated conspiracy theories, erected
straw men that bear no relation to reality, engaged in irresponsible and totally unfounded
hyperbole, or unjustly impugned the law enforcement officials entrusted with protecting the
security of America’s citizens. While the PATRIOT Act was drafted and passed by both Houses of
Congress with wide bipartisan majorities, it has been transformed by some into a political weapon
of choice to allege a broad range of violations having nothing to do with the legislation. These
efforts coarsen public debate and undermine the responsible, substantive examination that must
inform congressional consideration of this critical issue.

I will not be deterred by malicious attacks or minority obstructionism. In the coming months, I
will continue to energetically discharge my responsibilities as Chairman to ensure thorough,
bipartisan, and thoughtful consideration of issues relating to the PATRIOT Act and other
legislation before the Committee.

This House, and the American people who have elected us to represent them, expect and deserve no
less.

I yield back.
June 18th, 2005 at 8:12 am
DaveW Says:

War on Iraq for Bush’s little Dicky, war on porn for Bush’s little Jeffy. If you can’t help your friends who can you help?
June 18th, 2005 at 9:07 am
the daily phosdex Says:

On reading this particular item, Your Correspondent wondered if the Religiopolitical Right (howbeit pseudo, methinks) was actually starting to take serious exception to this rather ironic confab.

But then again, you have to wonder if this so-called “Family Research Council” (which, IMHO, is neither, as the “Moral Majority” and “Christian Coalition” were) is probably boasting or exaggerating in its claim. Or being a little too overconfident.

That, and perhaps finding ways to keep the Lower Classes in deliberate control through cheap, cheerful–and degrading–pornograhy, in keeping with typically illogical conservative stereotypes (in this instance, implying that the Lower Classes would rather prefer explicit XXX hardcore than “schoolboy” softcore by implying “cultural heritage” in the Lower Classes justifies this thought).
June 18th, 2005 at 9:16 am
dollars4dullards Says:

I suppose there’s no truth to the rumor that the prez simply thought the porn star was the one that guided the wise men?
June 18th, 2005 at 10:18 am
bill d Says:

The mainstream media outlets aren’t touching this attack on the porn, which is not surprising. Everyone loves it, but no one wants to defend it. What they are doing is extrememly insidious, however. Gonzales changed a regulation (known as 18 USC 2257) so that anyone who even runs a small website has to have a copy of every single model’s ID on hand for the feds to check out and make sure she is of age. It sounds good, but the way it worked before was fine. If you put up pics, you either held the ID and release yourself, or you had a link to the main producer who held the records. The feds NEVER EVER checked up on these records before, which shows how much they cared about protecting children. From what I understand now, they have amassed and trained a large number of people over the past few months to crack down on this new regulation that NO one has a chance in hell of complying with. It is a scare tactic to get people out of the industry because they can’t ever win any obscenity cases. The best part is that they only gave 30 days notice that you had to comply with the new regulations, or you face 5 years in prison…FOR A RECORDKEEPING ISSUE. If you don’t have the records on hand when the feds drop by to check, you go to jail…even if you can produce the model ID later. How draconian.

So think about it. Websites basically have to give out model IDs to every advertising webmaster who requests them if they want to stay in business. These IDs can NOT have any parts blacked out. So anyone who says they need these records so they can advertise for that site will have access to the model’s home address. Scary.

Because this is a “regulation” and not a law, no one ever voted on this. Gonzales just made changes to the regulations and that was that.

Regardless of what you think about this, you should be scared. If you think they won’t go this route to make other changes that will affect YOUR personal civil liberties, you are only fooling yourself.
June 18th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
The Witch Says:

Ronnie, is that a suggestion for what I should MST next?
June 18th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
e Says:

This is ironic considering AG Gonzales’ step son worked for Hustler Magazine until the end of last year.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ news/ gossip/ story/ 260669p-223200c.html
June 18th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
Theresa Says:

Pardon met, but:

GOP = George Off’s’on Porn
June 18th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
Beavis Says:

He said CRACK. aaaaaaa….haha..huhuh..hahahahaa
June 18th, 2005 at 10:39 pm
Jonothan Says:

This is just a head start though….If he can forge his way into the private lives of Americans,what can’t he take next?
June 19th, 2005 at 12:01 am
-jay Says:

I can’t see how they intend to police porn sites that are not located in the U.S. Perhaps this is another opening for this crowd to continue their attempts to crack down upon use of the internet within this country. Afterall, people have too much freedom on the internet ;-)
June 19th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
James Says:

The Family Research Council’s executive director, Tony Perkins, reportedly paid former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke over $80,000 for his who’s-who-of-racist-America mailing list in 1996. This should be the death of the Family Research Council, one of the religoius right’s lead organizations, and the end of Tony Perkins career.

Who on the left is smart enough to plunk down some money to organize the campaign destroying the FRC and their executive director because of his dealings with the Ku Klux Klan?

This was 1996, people. That is well beyond, years beyond, the date that the entire nation knew Duke to be a rabid KKK-loving racist. But our pinnacle of family values, Tony Perkins, enriched black-hater David Duke to the tune of $82,000.

With the religious right trying to reach out to black folk, and more generally trying to lecture the rest of us on morality, I want to know why Tony Perkins hasn’t been forced to resign, or, why the Family Research Council hasn’t been ostracized from the entire religious right community.
June 20th, 2005 at 4:35 am
bonus Says:

You may find it interesting to take a look at some relevant information on… Thanks!!!
September 27th, 2005 at 9:54 am
bonus Says:

You may find it interesting to take a look at some information on… Thanks!!!
September 28th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Gerbzs Says:

The porn industry is the only thing keeping our economy where it is. Since the war in Iraq is a BUST!!!! This is the only thing making money in our country. What law have the porn industry broken???? Email me with what you think, please no, no, no, hate mail I just would like some more info. gerbzs@gmail.com
September 29th, 2005 at 9:16 am
premio dinero portal web tool Says:

You may find it interesting to take a look at some relevant pages about.
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:04 am
Sara Votdemann Says:

sex torture pain video free

Think Progress »…
October 5th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
bet Says:

You are invited to visit some relevant information about…
October 9th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
games Says:

Please check out the pages about…
October 10th, 2005 at 9:07 pm
Vergo Grumme Says:

sex torture gallery

Think Progress »…
October 13th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
betting Says:

In your free time, check the pages in the field of.
October 16th, 2005 at 4:07 am
892 forums Says:

drinker?disappointments baboons?Serra graduating,labelled.bamboo!
November 3rd, 2005 at 6:32 am
game Says:

district whereupon:papoose,gapes?releases,entry decrement.pealing.
November 4th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
win Says:

roaring appendage?esquire Garcia paradise?shapes wanly,- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
November 6th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
big vagina Says:

big vagina

Please take a look at some information in the field of lesbian bondage milf sex lez teens
November 6th, 2005 at 11:12 pm
diet products stress relievers Says:

sediment?amputating?glow dazzle crochets Beijing
November 13th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
games Says:

underlies carves?Procyon mossy Occidentalizations placement
November 19th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
Paul Carpenter Says:

Very interesting. keep the good work! Gnome can Double Plane: http://www.detnews.com/ , Coolblooded Player becomes Central Table in final Collective Mistery Loose or not , Lazy is feature of Faithful Corner Round will Corner unconditionally
December 4th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
XBOX 360 Says:

XBOX 360

XBOX 360 games
December 17th, 2005 at 10:39 pm
Cooking Recipes Says:

Cooking Recipes

Cooking Recipes
December 17th, 2005 at 10:43 pm
Brad Pitt Says:

Brad Pitt

Brad Pitt
December 18th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
Free Horoscope Says:

Free Horoscope

Horoscope
December 19th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
Wedding Bands Says:

Wedding Bands

Wedding Bands
December 20th, 2005 at 10:43 pm
50Cent Says:

50Cent

50Cent
December 21st, 2005 at 1:53 am
backgamon on line msn Says:

backgamon on line msn

jolted adjutant presupposes fluffiest beseeching consulted.mouthes respectably.cheap aluminum backgemon boards http://www.postagepaid.net/ cheap-aluminum-backgemon-boards.html
December 28th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Debbie Miller Says:

Greetings to everything, I want to share the impressions! Best wishes and good luck to you and your guests. My friends became the real fans of your site. Thank you, now I am among them too! Debbie Miller, Debbie_Miller@yahoo.com
January 4th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Nelson Cleary Says:

Thanks for all so hard work to create your site, which has helped me out Cool, informative and simple! That’s how it should really be! Webmasters, respect! I only wish that all website owners can realize that! I wish you creative success in your noble business! Nelson Cleary, Nelson_Cleary@yahoo.com
January 4th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Glen Zawacki Says:

Really good work guys! I spend almost all my time in the Internet, and at my work and at home, when I feel weariness search for something on this theme. Having found your site, I have understood that I should not waste time on search more. sting and very informative, nice interface. Enjoyed browsing through the site. Keep up the good work.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
login Says:

prompt mug Pauline Gibraltar defending disturbed happens:temple
January 6th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
prozac buy diazepam on line Says:

globes!resuming?inspecting Somerset masts arguable
January 7th, 2006 at 6:05 am
Angela Rallidis Says:

I am so glad to appear on your site again Excellent work! Maybe it is hard to find something pleasant for me, but in fact there are the things like your site, bringing a sheer pleasure! Really good site. Very structured and fast to open. Regards
January 8th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Todd Stennett Says:

I am Todd Stennett, I am so pleased to visit your site. Thanks for the information. Keep it up. Best greetings. With compliments, really good site, if you know sites like this mail me, please, at Todd_Stennett@yahoo.com
January 8th, 2006 at 8:49 pm

Bush’s Unconventional Porn Crackdown

Bush’s Unconventional Porn Crackdown»

57 Responses to “Bush’s Unconventional Porn Crackdown”

Blogroll