Tea Party

Is Half the Tea Party Libertarian?


As David Kirby and I found in our analysis of Tea Party supporters at the Virginia Tea Party Convention in 2010, and published in Politico, the Tea Party is not one homogenous blob of ideologues. Many political scientists and political pundits who have not examined the data wrongly conclude the Tea Party is the GOP's base of extreme fiscal and social conservatives. Instead, examination of nationwide survey data reveals the Tea Party has at least two major groups: one libertarian leaning and the other socially conservative. These two groups agree on most things economic, but disagree when it comes to social and cultural issues. 

The recent Reason-Rupe poll also finds two groups among those who self-identify as supporters of the Tea Party, with 41 percent leaning-libertarian and 59 percent socially conservative. Tea Partiers generally agree on economic issues and abstract role of government questions. However, a split emerges on whether government has a role in promoting traditional values in society or if the government should not promote any particular set of values.

There are demographic differences between the two groups, with the libertarian-leaners less likely to attend religious services, more likely to come from the Northeast, with slightly higher educational attainment in some cases, and younger. 

Although Tea Partiers overall are de-branded Republicans, libertarian-leaning Tea Partiers are even more so. The plurality response to partisan identification is 44 percent "Independent" compared to 39 percent "Republican." When independents are asked which way they lean, most Tea Partiers lean Republican. Consequently, 39 percent of libertarian-leaning Tea Partiers are Republican and 29 percent lean Republican; in contrast, 57 percent of socially conservative Tea Partiers are Republican and 20 percent lean Republican.

Libertarian-leaners voiced more intense support for allowing workers the choice to opt out of Social Security and Medicare. They are also more likely to favor raising the retirement age than socially conservative Tea Partiers. They are less confident in the department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are also more likely to believe "misguided" regulations rather than the "lack of" regulations led to the troubled housing market.

Libertarian-leaners are much more likely to support a presidential candidate who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. They are also more likely to consider voting for a third party candidate.

NEXT: The Escalating Penalty for Asserting Your Right to a Trial

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The recent Reason-Rupe poll also finds two groups among those who self-identify as supporters of the Tea Party, with 41 percent leaning-libertarian and 59 percent socially conservative.

    For the love of God, will somebody please define the Tea Party for the benefit of its supporters?

    1. Its all about government spending. Nothing else.

      All other issues are a grab bag.

      1. One “can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative”.

        1. Yes…one can

  2. one homogenous blob of ideologues

    That’s no way to refer to Congress.

    1. Your right. You forgot to add the Federal Bureaucracy, including all those superfluous Depts conglomerating into that mutated Tetsuo-like chimera.

      1. *You’re. Flog me now, dammit.

  3. Is Half the Tea Party Libertarian?

    Only the good half.

  4. Many of the Tea Party types, like me, were Reagan conservatives who have become more fiscally conservative and socially indifferent over the years.

    We probably part ways with Libertarians the most on defense and immigration.

    You can have your drugs and gay marriage, I just don’t care. Leave me alone and let me keep most of my money.

    1. I’ll give you immigration, but there’s no way to tackle our spending without dramatically cutting our current defense spending.

      1. It’s the “dramatic” part where we differ.

        There are plenty of places to save some money with common sense. I don’t want to see a repeat of the Louis Johnson cuts – and the thousands of death they caused.

        1. “Dramatic” is the sense of more wise targeting of where the money allocated for defense actually goes.

          Also, the profligate crony-capitalism that is so inherent in procuring defense contracts also burns me up, Drake. The Diane Feinsteins of the world profiting off of being on a defense related committee and every other congress critter that has a shit fit when it’s suggested we close a military base or two makes me wanna puke.

          1. I agree. Our procurement system is completely broken and corrupted. We can’t even field a decent rifle because Colt owns enough members of Congress.

          2. I agree. Our procurement system is completely broken and corrupted. We can’t even field a decent rifle because Colt owns enough members of Congress.

        2. I dont favor dramatic cuts either. Just down to Swiss levels of per capita spending.

          1. psst, robc, that would be dramatic.

          2. Do I get to take my rifle home?

        3. Just not invading and occupying other countries would go a long way. The Defense budget ballooned since Iraq like never before, from an already high baseline. That and closing so many bases abroad, many of which are in countries that can defend themselves and where American interests are not at stake, would be an excellent start. The issues with contracts and orders are larger and will cause gnashing of teeth, so they can be left for later after the more ruinous have been taken care of.

          1. Exactly. We spend 4% of GDP on defense. The Swiss spend 1%. We dont even have to cut that far, split the difference and cut to 2.5%.

            1. yeah, save 300 billion dollars are year on defense (cut defense by 30%), 400 billion in discretionary spend (40%), eliminate education spending of 100 billion, 200 billion in medicare (20%) and 100 billion in social security (10%) and you balance the budget.

              But that goes to show you the hole we’re in. Nothing but dramatic changes will fix it.


        4. You can have your drugs and gay marriage, I just don’t care. Leave me alone and let me keep most of my money. …

          It’s the “dramatic” part where we differ.

          There are plenty of places to save some money with common sense.

          We either cut entitlement programs and defense spending or your taxes will go up. In the long run there’s a pretty obvious relationship between spending and taxation unless we decide to go the way of Greece.

          Our latest annual budget deficit projections put the number at $1.3 trillion (including military-related programs like DOE weapons research and VA, we spend around $1 trillion on defense). That’s about $10,000 per household. And it doesn’t include unfunded commitments, like the additional subsidy Social Security and Medicare will require to meet benefit promises.

          Wanting to keep most of your money is inconsistent with supporting only “commonsense” reductions to any of the above. We’re already paying for many of them with debt.

    2. Immigration is a mess no matter where you stand.

      Politically, I don’t see how unrestricted immigration — the nominal libertarian position — is anything other than a political suicide pact. On the other hand, there’s a very powerful argument that freedom and self-determination trump arbitrary constructs like borders. The current situation in some ways is very nice; it prevents freeloaders from crossing the border while more or less winking at the presence of foreign workers.

    3. “Socially indifferent.” I’m gonna use that one.

  5. The problem I have is that some conservatives may agree with the “philosophy” of smaller government with a smaller footprint, but when it comes to the practice, they can’t bear to actually effect SS, medicare or military spending, essentially making them the same as democrats (apart from the thinking gays are icky).

    And I think those that believe military, social security and medicare spending should remain the same or be higher is a mjority of the country.

    Which leads me to believe “we’re fucked”

    1. That’s true, but it’s more accurate to state that Americans in general are reticent to part ways with SS, Medicare, et al. If the Tea Party were the voting electorate, then there would be a slim majority in favor of opting out of Medicare and SS, and more sympathetic to revisiting TSA/homeland security issues. The only area where they might be less likely to agree with libertarians than the general public would be wrt the Iraq War.

      1. If we hadn’t had the Iraq and subsequent wars (and continued fruitless occupation/whack-a-mole in Afghanistan, we’d be alot less pressed to dramatically change social security and medicare, but since we did flush a whole bunch of money down the “head”, we find ourselves with some terrible decisions to make.

        1. I’m inclined to think that we would have had the same crisis, only 10-20 years from now. (I’m also not terribly convinced that Al Gore would have avoided going into Iraq; the Clinton administration was pretty gung-ho about going into Iraq for humanitarian reasons.)

          1. Or maybe North Korea, Pakistan, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Cuba or many other failed states and dictatorships. Our “humanitarian” missions continue to fail and we plow more and more money and wealth into those black holes.

            The point is we need to stop, reset and better consider our position in the world. A true leader of the world would show fiscal sanity and allow itself to be pulled in to every argument. We are not leaders, we’re merely wealthy paranoics, lashing out at perceived threats and shadowy conspiracies.

        2. The war wasn’t cheap, but it is a minor contributor to our current economic woes.

          1. 15% of the deficit (according to your numbers) isn’t minor.

            And cutting out the wars is only step one as I acknowledged above. Deep cuts have to occur across the board.

    2. We are indeed “fucked”

  6. I think the current Tea Party formed as mostly disillusioned Republicans solely grouping themselves on their shared complaint of big government. But then they looked around the group and, finding themselves in a crowd of other energized Republicans, decided opportunistically/mindlessly that now is the time get vocal on all the socially conservative ideals as well.

    We will call those who resisted that the libertarian wing of the TPM. If this poll is correct, there are a lot more of those than I would have guessed. (Oh, and I guess there are probably some “independents” and a few Democrats in there as well.)

    1. It’s also possible that those in the Tea Party best equipped to promote a message and garner attention were already hooked into a more typically Republican engine.

    2. I think you’re dead on.

    3. I’m not sure that’s quite true. I tend to remember it more as a “genuinely grassroots, decentralized movement picks up steam, realizes several electoral successes, starts to fall apart, and is co-opted by the GOP” kind of story.

    4. Not sure about your second paragraph, but your first is probably pretty close to the truth.

  7. Most Tea Partiers I’ve met, some of whom were very religious, were actually very minarchistic in a lot of their views, even some social ones. “Most”, unfortunately, isn’t “all”.

  8. The one Tea Party event that I attended (more like stumbled into) was pretty much middle-class/blue-collar types. There was a small number of religious types there too. But the message at the time I went there was pretty much “STOP SPENDING SO MUCH” with nary a mention of religion, abortion, etc.

    1. Exactly, all that stuff emerged only over time.

      1. To emerge it had to be there the whole time.

        I’d rather argue that it took time for the social conservatives to infiltrate and co-opt the economic conservative agenda.

        1. Yeah, could be.

        2. I suspect it was there the whole time, but only emerged after months and years because the priority was economic and fiscal. It still is, but with Democratic and “establishment” Republicans obstructing more Tea Party agendas in Congress and the White House, they have to talk about other issues at least to keep active. This would only change with a more strongly Tea-leaning Congress (and President) in 2012, but the signs are mixed as to how likely that is.

  9. “…who have not examined the data wrongly conclude…”

    What was concluded by the ones who did wrongly examine it?

    And why was it wrong of them to examine data? Isn’t that what they are supposed to do with data?

    1. Here, let me examine your “data”. It’s all for your own good.

  10. Statement A: The troubled housing market is the result of a lack of government oversight.

    If only we had had the government involved in housing and mortgages!! How did they somehow miss overseeing that important area?

    1. As far as Big Lies go, that’s one of the biggest.

      1. You lie!

  11. Recall that when Boehner’s Tea Party congress took power in January, their first order of business was to allocate a half-billion dollars (that we don’t have) to retain outside legal counsel to defend Clinton’s “Defense of Marriage” abomination.

    Even for born-again homophobes, how can you possibly justify that expenditure in any context of fiscal responsibility or reducing the scope of government?

    As John Stewart quipped recently, the TP is nothing more than the moral majority in tricorne hats. Crazy-eyes Bachmann is their leader/spokesperson for chrissakes.

    1. John Stewart is just following orders to discredit it.

      1. I dunno. They seem to be doing a pretty job of it all by themselves.

        I suspect much of the alleged fiscal conservatism has more to do with HOW the money is spent rather that HOW MUCH is spent. Use all you want to shit on teh gheys, invade other nations, fight losing “wars” on terror or drugs, incarcerate and execute more human beings than any other democratic nation….but don’t you dare spend a cent on those damn illegal Mexicans.

        1. Invade other nations like Libya? You mean Obama is a Tea Partier? Wow. That is big news.

          1. The Republicans were pissed at BHO because he didn’t ask for permission before joining that party, not because of how much it might cost.

            1. Yeah, clearly the Republicans were wrong for thinking that whole Constitution “Congress..declare war” clause was somehow relevant.

              1. They maybe thought it was wrong constitutionally, but their attempt to stop the fighting was timid at best.


            2. ^This.

              1. “Even for born-again homophobes, how can you possibly justify that expenditure in any context of fiscal responsibility or reducing the scope of government?”

                I can think of another group which justifies federal spending on the lawsuit against DOMA – the people who filed that suit.

                Where do they think the salaries for the judges come from? The opportunity costs to other litigants who have to wait in line behind these plaintiffs? The distinct risk that the government might actually spend money *contesting* the suit? (that would mean outside counsel if the Department of Justice doesn’t want to do its job).

                If the concern is only federal spending, then the people who started this suit are the primary ones who should take the blame.

                Of course, it’s allegedly worth every penny because gay rights is the civil rights movement of our era. But let us not pretend that those evil socons just dropped out of nowhere to spend money on an SSM lawsuit.

          2. Federal medical marijuana raids, illegal alien deportations,and crony capitalism all ensure Obama’s Tea Party cred. Illegal wars are just gravy.

          3. Yes, because criticizing the Tea Party automatically makes BradK a fan of Obama.

    2. It’s not that simple. The Tea Party isn’t exactly monolithic, and it’s clear that the initial motivation for the movement forming was an out-of-control government. The left, of course, doesn’t like this new shift towards an anti-government bias reflected by the Tea Party, and does everything possible to minimize, trivialize, and demonize the movement.

      1. The Tea Party isn’t exactly monolithic, and it’s clear that the initial motivation for the movement forming was an out-of-control government.

        This is the point. Period. Full stop. The TEA Party’s greatest asset, and arguably its converse Achilles Heel is the lack of a uniform, top down codified message for every little issue.

        If I wanted that, I would become either a John Bircher maggot or some Obama fellating, statist drone.

        Incidently, it’s not only the left that is hostile to the smaller government impetus of The TEA Party. The Establishment TEAM RED douches like Mc Conehead and Boner are inherently hostile as well. Look at how they preach “Oh, we’re for lower spending! We promise!” Then, when the vote comes, The Establishment says, “Oh, not this vote! We’ll scare off the precious independents. We’ll get ’em next time!”

        1. This is true–the GOP doesn’t entirely love the movement, either, despite benefiting from it in 2010.

          1. The GOP establishment down right hates it. They haven’t had much success in co-opting the Tea Party yet.

            1. But they have to be careful about attacking it, as it’s the source of some of their electoral success. And likely will be in 2012.

      2. The initial TP (ca. 2008) I think was very monolithic, espousing the same values you state and a mission to rein in the federal government. Contrast that to the TP of today what you have is a very clear dichotomy — almost schizophrenia — regarding core values and mission statement. About the only thing that TP’ers agree upon is their rabid hatred for BHO.

        I write this not as some smug liberal terrified by the torches-and-pitchforks metaphor the left MSM uses to characterize the TP, but as someone very libertarian-leaning who was initially intrigued by TP2008.

        I’m appalled by TP2011.

        The question posited by an earlier commenter was whether or not the SoCons were there all along, crouching in the bushes, or if they saw a good thing and signed up. I honestly don’t know. Either way, the result is shite.

        1. “I’m appalled by TP2011.”

          Why? Provide us with links to five things that the Tea Party has done in the last two years to change your mind and make you appalled. If you can’t articulate specific things that they have done or supported, then you are nothing but a concern troll pulling this shit out of your ass.

          1. If you can’t articulate specific things that they have done or supported, then you are nothing but a concern troll

            John adds “challenge troll” to his “validation troll” act.


            1. What is wrong with that? He says he is appalled. Then he ought to be able to list the reasons why he is appalling.

              If I said Obama is appalling, it would be perfecting reasonable for you to ask “what has Obama done to make you appalled?” How could it not be. And if I couldn’t list specific things that Obama has done explain why I find them objectionable, then it would be fair to say that I really have no good reason to find Obama appalling.

              The same logic applies here. How could it not apply. I am not questioning his sincerity. I am asking for the reasons why he thinks the way he does. Isn’t that called rational discourse?

            2. I think Neu Mexican fucks sheep.

              Now do you plan to do your challenge troll act there Neu Mexican and ask me just what causes me to think that you fuck sheep?

              1. I think Neu Mexican fucks sheep.

                [Citation unnecessary]

                1. I think Neu Mexican fucks sheep.

                  [Citation unnecessary]


                  John can’t tell the difference between a sheep and a dog.

                  I don’t know who “Neu Mexican” is.

                  1. And as usual you have no answer

                    1. He says he is appalled. Then he ought to be able to list the reasons why he is appalling.

                      Read his post.
                      It says why he is appalled.

                      Challenge trolling involves DEMANDING that someone elaborate a point that they have already made. AS H&R’s longest standing troll, you are the master.

              2. Although you might make an interesting subject for a case study in abnormal psychology, for, say, a undergrad psych honors project, as I am not a psychologist I don’t really care why you think what you think.

        2. Core values are still very monolithic. Cut fucking spending.

          That is it. Nothing else is a core value of the TP.

        3. I’m disturbed by elements of the Tea Party and some of the Tea Party agenda, of course–hard not to be as a libertarian–but there’s still some good results from the movement. Really, the small attempt to rein in government spending is likely a direct result of Tea Party candidates getting elected. Beats the previous status quo.

          1. In serious Pro, what elements disturb you? I have never been to a Tea Party event. Maybe you have. But from what I see in the media, I don’t see anything other than people demanding some accountability in government and for less government. What are you seeing that I am not?

            1. Like I said, there’s nothing particularly monolithic about the movement, other than its starting place in wanting to reduce government spending. So pick your poison. They seem to be okay with continued heavy-duty intervention overseas, which is something we have to give up to some extent to reduce the budget, and they also occasionally jump into social conservatism, which I think dilutes the fiscal message.

              1. That is just it. I have never seen anywhere where the people who claim to be Tea Party, at least the rallies anyway, ever said much about wars overseas or social conservative ideas. Are there signs at these rallies saying “stop gay marriage”? Are there people claiming to be there because they want to keep Obama from surrendering in Iraq?

                Maybe there are. But I have never seen it. People just assume they are that way. But I am not so sure. Isn’t it at least possible that the majority of the people at these rallies either don’t have an opinion on these issues, or if they do are not there for that particular issue or in fact feel the way you do?

                1. I don’t attribute anything like that specifically to the Tea Party as a whole, but I’ve definitely seen some people in the movement saying things I don’t care for. By and large, I approve of the Tea Party, even if it only partially does what I want it to do. After all, we’ve got to kill Leviathan, and they at least want to shrink it.

        4. If Republicanism is Christianity, the establishment GOP types are the Catholic Church and Tea Party are the Protestants. Except that the Muslim empires (DNC) are much more powerful and aggressive in this analogy, so they can’t afford too much internecine warfare just yet.

          But anyway, Tea Party should be considered more of a category that contains a lot of little coherent groups that for the most part share many beliefs with GOP Republicans, but have both doctrinal differences and even more differences in practice and organization. But, so long as the Democrats remain such a unifying threat, they won’t be able to create much individual identity; if some sort of political Mongol horde happens to destroy the opposition’s power and deplete itself in the process, however…

    3. “Even for born-again homophobes, how can you possibly justify that expenditure in any context of fiscal responsibility or reducing the scope of government?”

      Because the law is what it is. You can’t just say we won’t defend laws we don’t like. The DOJ has an obligation to defend the laws that are on the books. It is that simple.

      And Jon Stewart is an admitted comedian. Why would I take anything he says seriously? He made a witty statement. Good for him. That is what he gets paid for. But since he is a comedian whose job it is to be funny, his saying it is no evidence of its truth.

      1. You can’t just say we won’t defend laws we don’t like.

        Perhaps you can’t say that ….

      2. Thanks for proving my point.

        1. How does that prove your point? I said nothing about the desirability of the law. I don’t think it is a good law. But I also don’t think the AG has the right to decide which laws are worthy of defense and which laws are not.

          Try again.

    4. Boehner’s Tea Party congress

      Ivy League Football.

      1. The Tea Part caucus is like what? Twenty or thirty members. But it is the Tea Party Congress. And oh yeah, the Democrats still control the Senate. So couldn’t it just as easily be Reid’s Tea Party Congress?

        Few things more annoying than liberal concern trolling.

        1. Yeah, plus including Boehner as a TPer is a complete joke. He hates them and they hate him.

          1. If only we had the Republican Party that lives in liberals’ minds, we would all have a merry Christmas.

        2. “The Tea Part caucus is like what? Twenty or thirty members.”


          1. Out of 535 members of Congress. So it is like what, 13% of Congress give or take? Hardly a “Tea Party Congress”.

    5. Crazy-eyes Bachmann is their leader/spokesperson for chrissakes.

      No she isnt.


    6. Half a billion dollar allocation? $500,000,000?

      A million hours at $500/hr? Or maybe an infinite amount of monkeys being paid an infinitesimal amount each to spend eternity trying to write a coherent brief. Either way, check your numbers.

  12. The last question really gives away the game in terms of the artificiality of the division being made. 40% of the people who don’t think the government should promote any particular set of values would not vote for a candidate who was “liberal on social issues”. Wanna know why? Because, I believe, they correctly recognize that liberals promote certain social values just as much as conservatives.

  13. The tea-party may be flawed and populated with too many anti-immigration types but overall, I’d live in the tea-party’s american in a heartbeat over any other leading political movement’s vision of america.

    1. And yes, I’m not including libertarians as one of the leading political movements. I wish we were but no, we’re not.

    2. +1

      On the question about “traditional values”, I’m not sure the TPers who answered that way could all be called SoCons. One could easily interpret “traditional values” as “rugged individualism, no-pain no gain, work for what you get, etc.”

  14. This story’s been up for an hour and no one’s done a “People’s Front of Judea” joke.

    You sicken me…

    1. Thats because there havent been splitters yet. They are all working under the Tea Party banner still.

    2. I keep seeing “TPer” and keep thinking “T’Pauer.”

      1. TPaw’er?

        1. They who support T’Pau.

          1. Do not attempt to speak with me.
            I am deep in the Plak Tow.

            1. Elections are very similar to Pon Farr.
              Every 8 years otherwise reasonable people act emotionally…

              1. I’d be okay with that if they were logical and stoical the rest of the time.

            2. I love it!

  15. There’s a big intellectual leap in this poll. Just because 41% say
    “Government should not promote any particular set of values” does not mean that you can call that 41% “Tea Party Libertarian-Leaners” through the rest of the poll answers.

    Similarly, the 59% aren’t necessarily “Tea Party Social Conservatives” as you call them.

    If I believe that “government should promote values” like freedom as opposed to being somehow neutral on that, why does that make me a SoCon?

    It’s just sloppy terminology.

  16. For a group less popular than atheists and Muslims the TP sure does get a lot of obsessive attention.

    1. That’s because they’re not really less popular than atheists and Muslims. Just according to libs they are.

      1. The “Tea Party,” like “Libertarians,” is alternately massive and tiny, all-powerful and irrelevant, as convenient to The Narrative at a given moment.

  17. In my mind, the social conservatives, both dems and repubs, are the ones at fault for the worst things in our society. They created and maintain the drug war, they are responsible for non-sensical laws against “adultery” and “sodomy”. They are the ones who insist on incarcerating citizens for victimless crimes.

    Government should create and maintain a society that encourages a vigorous free market, and that is about all it should do.

    This is, of course, a pipe dream. Without medaling in people’s lives government becomes small and relatively unimportant and this is intolerable.

    1. You’re confusing “social conservatism” with progressivism.

  18. I doubt that it’s actually half. In any case, what brings the two parts of the Tea Party together is stupidity, and that explains its broad appeal. The social conservatives are stpid and angry; the libertarian types are just stupid. Rick Perry is your best bet. Stick with him.

  19. Is police abuse a social issue? Should government “promote the value” of police obeying the law and respecting the citizens?

    1. Absolutely not.

  20. Anyone who was apart of the TP During Ron Paul’s first election campaign knew right away it was a mixed back after Obama Won. Overnight it went from an organization w/ libertarian ideals to an organization of Fat Shit Retarded Motherfuckers who don’t read or comprehend anything they can’t repeat back like a parrot. Elect any Republican and you’ll see who was really a TPer.

  21. Is the Tea Party Libertarian? Think you know what Libertarianism means? Libertarianism is a pure political ideology , and ask only one question and has only one answer. When is the use of violence justified? Only in response or reaction to a infringement of personal or private property rights . The question is, What happens when I refuse to cooperate. Follow that to its conclusion,and if it ends in violence then it should not be done.

    1. Also the core of conservatism is Libertarianism.Think about that and what would our founders would say.Liberty isn’t free and must be fought for day in and day out.

    2. Libertarianism is only “pure” on this blog. In the real world that purity doesn’t exist.

      1. When i say it is a pure ideology , I mean that it does not take anything else into consideration when formulating a basis to the ideology.Libertarianism breaks all questions down to this one idea. And that is what makes it a pure ideology. When it pertains to political discourse you just have to ask the question, What if I do not cooperate?

  22. seful information, many thanks to the author. It is puzzling to me now, but in general, the usefulness and importance is overwhelming. much thanks again and good luck! welcome to visit us ,if you are interested in winter sports .jakke salg

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.