Election 2016

Two Cheers (& More!) for Rand Paul!

His presidential campaign is over, but his political achievements are just beginning.

|

With Rand Paul's suspension of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination comes an understandable deluge of autopsies, elegies, screw-yous, and snarky subtweets.

Yet I come not to bury the "libertarian-ish" Paul but to praise him. In five short years as a senator, he's already elevated a host of issues that almost would have never seen the light of day. Assuming he keeps his Senate seat in the fall (as safe a bet as can be made in politics, which entails serious risk), he's still at the start of a career that, along with other newish colleagues, may well transform not just the GOP but the country as a whole. Here's hoping.

Among the good things that Paul has harped on (even and especially when it wasn't popular):

  • Spending and debt issues. When Matt Welch and I first interviewed Paul shortly after he came to Washington in 2011, he was wearing a "red cent" lapel pin and was busy crafting balanced budgets and calling bullshit on the bipartisan willingness to deficit-spend us into oblivion. As Matt noted earlier today, he's still on that beat even as the party leadership (and his presidential rivals) mostly talk about what they want to spend your future earnings on. And don't be fooled: Debt and deficits are already getting worse than D.C. has been letting on. 
  • Civil liberties and state surveillance. Before there was Edward Snowden, there was Rand Paul's filibuster calling out Barack Obama for pussyfooting around whether he believed there were any limits on what a president could do in the name of the War on Terror. Liberal Democrats who had rightly denounced expansive and occult readings of executive power during the George W. Bush years had mostly fallen silent upon the ascension to the throne of Barack Obama. Pro-war Republicans mostly held their tongues too. It was Paul who brought questions about the government's and the president's unwillingness to come clean or act constitutionally to the forefront of the public. Paul's highly public act—which dominated Twitter as it happened—gave what was to come later the context we needed to understand just how FUBAR things had gotten.
  • Police abuse and criminal justice reform. Rand Paul was the first national politician (along with libertarian Republican Rep. Justin Amash) to call out the situation in Ferguson, Missouri as an example of bigger issues. Before Missouri's own senator, Claire McCaskill, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama. What's more, Paul's discussion of the matter helped place law enforcement abuses in a legal, cultural, and historical context that helped non-minorities understand what abuse of power looks like. Along with his colleague Mike Lee of Utah, he continues to be the main Republican in the Senate to be pushing serious reform of a criminal justice system that has needed reform for generations.
  • Foreign policy and containment of radical Islam. Arguably the most-amazing Republican policy switcheroo is one that no one is openly talking about: Which of the GOP presidential candidates is calling for a no-holds-barred, boots-on-the-ground invasion of the Middle East these days? The answer is none (though all are dying to, as is Hillary Clinton). The person most responsible for anything resembling restraint in American foreign policy is Rand Paul. As a neophyte senator, he pushed back against what seemed at the time an unstoppable movement to bomb and eventuall invade Syria in 2013. Dubbed a "wacko bird" for arguing that the U.S. military should be used to defend the country rather than play beat cop to the world, he was the most vocal and consistent opponent of elective war in his own party. He also gave a thoughtful speech at the Heritage Foundation of all places that recovered the original meaning of Cold War "containment" as everyone and his grandpa were ready to start making sand glow green in countries we'd just pulled out of. He also is still calling for an actual declaration of war not just on ISIS but on Libya, where his caution proved sadly prophetic.

  • Recharging and remaking the GOP. It can't be easy to have a famous father but Paul fils, like old Daddy Ron, is remaking the Republican Party in all sorts of ways. Ron Paul brought in tons of young people and folks who had never been interested in politics during his own presidential runs in 2008 and 2012. Seemingly alone among this years presidential contenders, Rand took seriously the party's own official autopsy of Mitt Romney's sad-sack effort to unseat Obama and has spent serious time reaching out to racial and ethnic minorities as well as all sorts of other people long ignored by the Party of Lincoln. "We're going to win when we look like America," he told a New Hampshire crowd in 2013. "We need to be white, we need to be brown, we need to be black, we need to be with tattoos, without tattoos, with pony tails, without pony tails, with beards, without." As important, Paul is a mentor and inspiration to a younger generation of congressmen such as Justin Amash and Thomas Massie. Along with the always-underrated Mike Lee, Paul is one of the intellectual and strategic architects of a Republican Party that is serious about cutting the size, scope, and spending of the federal government.

Lord knows that from a Reason-style libertarian perspective, Rand Paul hasn't been perfect, either as a presidential candidate or a senator. And while the list above isn't exhaustive or complete, now is the time to take a moment and take the measure of what he's accomplished and set into motion.

The "Libertarian Moment" that Paul has rightly been identified with has never been about electoral politics per se. In coining the term, Matt Welch and I have always emphasized that we were describing a culture characterized by "comfort with and demand for increasingly individualized and personalized options and experiences in every aspect of our lives." Similarly, we stressed that politics is a "crippled, lagging indicator" of where America is headed, so you should expect it to be the last redoubt of top-down, centralized thinking and control to be remade by libertarian sensibilities. That Rand Paul has done as well as he has—and that we just witnessed two independents do so well in Iowa—is a sign that things are headed in the right direction, if never as fast as some of us might prefer.

NEXT: Critics Don't Want To Admit Flint's Water Crisis Is Due to Stimulus Plan Rather Than Austerity

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 “Libertarian Moment” that Paul has rightly been identified with has never been about electoral politics per se. In coining the term, Matt Welch and I have always emphasized that we were describing a culture characterized by “comfort with and demand for increasingly individualized and personalized options and experiences in every aspect of our lives.” Similarly, we stressed that politics is a “crippled, lagging indicator” of where America is headed, so you should expect it to be the last redoubt of top-down, centralized thinking and control to be remade by libertarian sensibilities.

    So once again you’re saying that the libertarian moment hinges entirely on how this next election turns? Well I have some bad news for you Nick…

    1. Well, at least things are moving in the right direction culturally, right? Because people are tolerant of gay marriage and transgendered it totally means we’re moving towards libertopia because those thing absolutely characterize the deepest libertarian sensibilities. It could be that or it could be that people simply don’t give a shit about, well, much of anything any longer.

      1. This Lenin guy is kind of leading Russia in the right direction. I mean, he’s against the hereditary privileges of the nobility, right? Pretty libertarian. I mean those Tsarist aristocrats think they can send their enemies to prison camps, for Christ’s sake. Lenin may be a little iffy on some economic matters, but he’d never do that. We should get behind him, god forbid those Tsarists aren’t defeated in good time.

    2. So why did he write this then?

      https://reason.com/blog/2016/02…..bernie-san

    3. Reading comprehension is less important than instant first-post snark, eh?

      1. I read it as Hugh making an attempt at irony – mocking what he sees as the hysteria of the moment (election cycle).

        But I could be wrong.

        1. Or I could be insensitive to the meme, or he could be clumsy at the meme.

          I’ll probably forget in a few minutes anyway.

  2. Two cheers and more for the guy Reason quietly accused of not being libertarian enough!

    Seriously, Rand had no one by his side. Most serious conservative candidate have been covered and or endorsed by right leaning media outlet – FOX news, NRO, Daily Caller, talk radio, etc. Trump gets bonus coverage from the mainstream media.

    Rand was just sort of on an island of his own and what little libertarian outfits or publication that’s out there didn’t (and couldn’t) create any buzz for him. His dad’s fans apparently found another angry savior in Trump or Sanders.

    The libertarian movement is still a bit too obscure to make noise outside of certain wing of the GOP party. No one knew who Gary Johnson was and if the LP is new, he’ll be just as invisible.

    1. Reason definitely gave Rand too little support. Wasting all kinds of time publishing “Trump Sucks” columns several times per day, instead of boosting Rand.

    2. I disagree. Reason and other libertarian outlets have given Rand plenty of credit when he has acted more like a libertarian.

      What were they to do when he would make the unenviable attempt to please religious and nationalist conservatives? Just wink and stay quiet?

  3. Libertarians in politics, especially Republican libertarians must walk a tight rope. Rand isn’t perfect. Neither were Mises, Friedman, Hayek, or our dear Ron Paul. But Rand is a leader in the fight for libertarians ideas. It reminds me of what Martin Luther King Jr. said to Billy Graham,
    “You stay in the stadiums, Billy,” he said, “because you will have far more impact on the white establishment there than you would if you marched in the streets. Besides that, you have a constituency that will listen to you, especially among white people, who may not listen so much to me. But if a leader gets too far out in front of his people, they will lose sight of him and not follow him any longer.
    This isn’t a call for ideological relativism, but just a call to keep things in perspective.

    1. Translation: let’s keep playing the electoral politics / constitutionalism / work within the system charade. It has really done wonders, hasn’t it?

      1. It can get a whole lot worse

        1. That has been the trajectory.

          We have far less liberty today than we did yesterday, last week, last year, 30 years ago, and 40 years ago.

          1. We have far less liberty today than we did yesterday, last week, last year, 30 years ago, and 40 years ago.

            You are retarded. Eat shit and die, you asshole.

            See? I didn’t have the freedom to leave an anonymous internet comment like that 30 or 40 years ago, did I? You can be freer in some ways now than ever before. You just have to use your imagination and pretend you’re not really 34 years old and still living in your mom’s basement and those sexy dark elves inside your MMORPG really do exist. WHEEEE!

            1. In 1975, it was legal to:

              (1) Open a stock brokerage account with $10,000.00 in cash and not have to identify the source of the cash.

              (2) In most states, purchase firearms from a catalogue, with no background checks.

              (3) Drive a car without wearing seatbelts.

              (4) In almost all states, drive a motorcycle without a helmut.

              (5) Have kids as passengers without having to place them in restraining devices.

              (6) Drive a bicycle without a helmut.

              (7) Cross into Canada with just a driver’s license.

              (8) Buy beer if one was 18.

              (9) Make bank deposits of over $10,000.00 without triggering a SARS.

              (10) Purchase cigarettes without an ID.

              (11) Make a series of bank deposits of less than, but close to, $10,000.00 without triggering a SARS.

              (12) Refuse to bake cakes for gay couples.

              (13) Refuse to hire a person because they were gay.

              (14) Get a job without having to prove one’s citizenship.

              (15) By plane tickets without having to produce identification.

              The list is endless. But, Jersey Kids thinks that it is retarded to point out the fact that we are far less free today.

              1. Is this a good time to discuss my plan to euthanize all the progressives?

                1. James Ostrowski thinks so and he knows far more about progressivism than Jerseys Kids or any of the woodchippers here.

                2. Go on.

              2. You know what else was legal 1975? Marital rape. You gotta look at the whole picture.

                1. Yeah, but people were more hairy in 1975.

          2. Wrong. We have more first amendment liberties, blacks aren’t nearly as subjugated by The System, cops are more accountable to public opinion even if they still, literally, get away with murder, corruption is more easily exposed, the government doesn’t have nearly the stranglehold it used to have on information (3 networks vs the Internet), there are far more independent lawyer farms suing the government and forcing reforms.

            Certainly there are retrograde areas. But if I were to choose based entirely on freedoms, there’s not a chance in hell I’d choose even 5 years ago.

            1. (16) The ability to sue and recover damages against the state and / or state actors is much harder today.

              (17) Blacks are hassled more today as evidenced by the sheer number of them incarcerated as well as a much higher percentage of the black population being incarcerated than in 1975.

              (18) Asset forfeiture. Much worse today than in 1975.

              (19) No, we have less FA liberty than in 1975, to wit:

              (a) The fenced in “free-speech” zones;

              (b) The far more powerful ability of the state to eavesdrop, listen, snoop, and spy;

              (c) The far more actual eavesdropping, listening, snooping, and spying the state does;

              (d) College life (do I have to elaborate?)

              (e) The ongoing erosions of FOIA;

              (f) The muzzling of would be whistleblowers as evidenced by the growing items of information and subject matter that require a public employee to obtain permission before being able to speak about the matter in question;

              (g) Edward Snowden – let’s see how long he would remain “free” if he were stupid enough to come back to the Progressive States of America.

              (h) The Obama Administration’s resurrection of the Espionage Act as a means of intimidation;

              (I) The We The People lawsuit being dismissed;

              (j) Hate speech / hate crime laws passed and consistently rubber stamped by the judiciary.

              1. What happened to 1-15? Too many to rebut all, so I will pick a few.

                To take just one example, I doubt there are very many blacks who would enjoy the state bigotry of the past compared to today. There’s a larger black middle class than there used to be, black Congress critters and judges, and even a black President.

                You say it’s harder to sue the government, and that the 1st amendment is worse off. You are wrong on both counts. All the myriad organizations suing the government today, and rolling back environmental overreach, bureaucratic stonewalling, and, yes, FOIA rejections, did not exist in the good ole days. You had, what, the ACLU and NAACP? People thrown in jail for obscene speech, printing pamphlets on birth control, all sorts of things.

                The explosion of smart phone cameras distributed by the Internet was not only technologically impossible years ago, but so was news in general. The government easily kept the three networks quiet when it wanted. Is that what you think was better?

                1. What about 1-15? All of those support the proposition that we are less free today. All of the requirements to produce identification for so many of life’s daily activities and transactions is something that you do not find disturbing?

                  How about the war on cash? Good luck going into a car dealership with 30k in cash to buy your new car. Try it. Or, good luck buying a million dollar home, with cash. See what the real estate brokers, the closing attorneys, and the title insurance companies have to say about that.

                  In connection with the WOD and the war on cash, how about the endless reams of anti-money laundering regulations?

                  Does it not bother you that the banks, insurance companies, broker-dealers, investment advisory firms, law firms, mortgage lenders, pension plans, etc., have legions of compliance people who function as rats and snitches as well as do-gooder baby-sisters who force you to fork over all sorts of financial and biographical information in connection with you doing business with them. For example, how about opening a checking account? How about opening a brokerage account? How about wiring money from your brokerage account to your bank account? How about accessing your money from an account through your investment advisor who is tied to a broker-dealer?

                  In 1975, it was far easier to do all of the above, including not having to produce ID and all sorts of other information.

                  1. As for black folk, it does not logically follow that they enjoy more liberty today than 1975 because today there are more democrat black congress critters, there is a black supreme court judge, and a half-black president.

                    If they enjoy more liberty, why are so many more blacks, in both absolute and relative numbers, incarcerated today?

                    Has there been a marked reduction in the number of blacks tied to the welfare state plantation? You know that there has been an explosion in the number of Afro-americans who are currently the beneficiaries of welfare programs. More welfare necessarily means less freedom.

                    Besides, black people are subject to the same totalitarian rules and regulations making life more miserable for the rest of us. To wit, is there an exception under FACTA for blacks? FACTA is also another example of one’s liberty to be left alone being eroded. In 1975, you could own a Swiss bank account and that fact need not have been reported by the Swiss banks. Not today.

                    1. Oh fooey. You gave yourself away by calling Obama half-black without also calling most other blacks half, quarter, and other diluted measures.

                      Go ahead, you cherry pick all the things you want. No shit not everything is better, it never can be. 5000 years ago, American Indians had a lot more freedom — the freedom to not read, the freedom to die in war, the freedom to die of disease, and of course the freedom to wander all over as long as no one else got in their way. You can cherry pick all the freedoms you want, but they are just pickings, and the vast majority of freedoms are much bigger than your cherry pickings.

                    2. I cite dozens of actual examples to support my point. You?

                      How about one more: your handle / screen name. Do I need to go all Popehat on you to make the point? How ironic.

                  2. Who the fuck wants to carry around 30k in cash to buy a car? That’s retarded. Cash is disappearing because it is less convenient and less safe.

            2. Thank you for that comment, Scarecrow.

            3. Personally, I’d do 1972 again in a minute. It may have been the low water mark in arts and culture, but there was a hell of a lot more personal freedom for law abiding citizens.

      2. Perhaps I’m missing something, but there seem to be three options: participate and work within the current system for change, rise up in arms against the current system, or do nothing.
        You tell me which you think is the most viable solution?

        1. One can do some combination of option one and two as well as implement option four – creating voluntary associations / contractual arrangement / living life outside of the state. Most of us already do some of option four whether we realize it or not.

          1. Seeing as I like not being in prison, or dead, or having more of my property confiscated, I’m gona pass on your options.

        2. The best solution is exit.

        3. “America is at that awkward stage; it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

          –Claire Wolfe

        4. Harry Browne: How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World. Read it.

          You want to be free from the world the way it is? It’s going to cost you. Spend your whole life fighting the system and getting nowhere or go find a place away from the rest of the world. But be aware that “the rest of the world the way it is” includes the good as well as the bad, most people get along with the world better than you do and those people own all the good real estate. You’re going to have to go off and live in a cabin in the woods in Montana somewhere if you want to get away from everybody else, but everybody else includes most of the good Chinese take-out and all of the really great dive bars. So you gotta compromise – how much privacy for how much socialization?

  4. Matt Welch and I have always emphasized that we were describing a culture characterized by “comfort with and demand for increasingly individualized and personalized options and experiences in every aspect of our lives.”

    You mean, like a choice of deodorants or living without health insurance(gasp!)?

  5. Too bad he is quitting now.

    He actually distinguished himself from the bottom tier in Iowa. Though his numbers in New Hampshire are bad now, I think that New Hampshire would be a good place for a libertarian to make a little noise.

    He had finally found his voice in debates. It would have been good for him to be in another.

    1. Rand needs a billionaire to support his campaign.

      1. Speaking of which, why didn’t the Koch brothers go to bat for him? Or did they? They’re supposedly omnipotent, I would think that would get you more than 4% of the vote.

        1. Koch bros did not, and most observers found it strange. I believe Paul’s temperament is also an impediment to his success on the schmooze circuit – which is something one has to be good at if they need other peoples’ money.

        2. I suspect they would support him if they thought he had a better chance, but it seems that the Kochs are more selective about the windmills they target.

  6. Matt Welch and I have always emphasized that we were describing a culture characterized by “comfort with and demand for increasingly individualized and personalized options and experiences in every aspect of our lives.” Similarly, we stressed that politics is a “crippled, lagging indicator” of where America is headed, so you should expect it to be the last redoubt of top-down, centralized thinking and control to be remade by libertarian sensibilities.

    More accurately, our culture should be characterized by a demand for moar. We want individualized options and experiences and we want them at no real cost to ourselves. In other words, we want what we want and we want it for free. Basically, we are fucking children. Assuming this post-modern instinct can be called “libertarian sensibilities” is delusional. A libertarian moment would include a demand for more personal choice married to an understanding of personal responsibility and agency. The latter two are completely absent from the conversation.

      1. I think that little girl took responsibility for her own flatulence. I wish this girl would do the same.

  7. He’s the only politician from either major party that libertarians can look to and think, for the most part, “that’s my guy.” He ran a terrible, just God-awful campaign though. Hopefully he learned some valuable lessons he can apply to a more successful run in the future.

  8. I’ve been thinking about the Iowa caucuses and Paul. It seems to me that the Free State Project should have picked Iowa instead of Vermont. While there are 3 million in Iowa compared to roughly 625,000 in Vermont, in the caucuses this year, 4 out of 5 Republicans stayed home and did not caucus. If you’re committed enough to move to a state to build a consensus, I’d think a person would be committed enough to caucus. According to news reports, with record turnout, 180,000 turned out for the caucuses. Cruz won with 27.6% of the votes, or 49,680 votes. Again, going with the committed enough to move, that means approximately 50K free staters in Iowa could shape the early presidential race.

    1. Isn’t it New Hampshire that has the free state project?

      1. Shhh. It’s funnier to read that way.

      2. Close enough. He was confusing the FSP with Bernie.

        1. I’m glad I amused someone, today. I don’t know how I confused that in my mind (age?), but it makes even more sense with New Hampshire, since their population is 1.3 million.

    2. Except that no one ever moves to Iowa willingly.

  9. I’ll give them credit, this article if funnier than any of the Friday so-called Funnies.

  10. Nick,
    Great article. I’ll try not to bash you or the Jacket on your next anti-Cruz rant.

  11. The only choice left is the Libertarian Party.

    1. Instead of the requisite futile run at the presidency, maybe we could work on getting more Lib Party state legislators and US congressmen elected. Really build up the party to where it’s regarded as much more than a fringe group.

      1. Agree.
        Does anyone maintain a “liberty score” for congressmen, akin to the consevative score used by the right?

  12. Reason sure writes a lot of millennial bashing pieces…then they sprinkle in ones that say we are the future of our culture and politics. Furthermore, it seems as though Reason doesn’t back a single candidate for President, even Gary Johnson. They write articles saying each candidate COULD be a smart choice for Libertarians and write still more articles bashing the same candidates into the dirt. They wrote an article essentially calling out Rand Paul for “not being Libertarian enough” and today, they wrote one saying he deserves praise. They suggested Bernie is the best choice for Libertarians while skewering him in a separate article. They did the same for Hillary. I’m not sure where Reason actually stands on much and I don’t think they are either. One would think that, as a Libertarian publication, they would automatically have all of their staff throw support behind the Libertarian Party, but they don’t. I’ve had a subscription to their magazine for two years, but I may soon let it lapse.

    1. Reason doesn’t endorse candidates. I’ve been reading reason for 20 years and they never have,it’s always been their policy.

  13. This was a great tribute to Rand. I was so hopeful for him & will continue to support his fight for liberty.

  14. This is one more reason why I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever in the United States ever returning to being anything remotely resembling a free country. Even so-called libertarians who should know something about politics and how gains are made incrementally (that even goes back directly to Thomas Jefferson, you can look it up) are too stupid to support a viable and (by comparison) very libertarian candidate for president until it’s too late.

    Nick Gillespie and many other so-called libertarian writers, ran no shortage of pieces nitpicking Rand Paul early on.

    Well, now you are left with not a single candidate who wouldn’t arrest and prosecute you for any number of victimless crimes, drop bombs on innocent bystanders (aka collateral damage) and think nothing of tracking your every phone call without a warrant.

    Nevertheless, you do get to feel morally and intellectually superior.

    The Land of the Free, Home of the Brave is DEAD and STINKIN.

    I will take my chances with these guys: http://libertalia.band.

  15. oh well, Rand was my only guy in the race, so now I guess I can relax and enjoy the clown show that is this election without worrying if he’ll win or not. It was probably best that he drop out now and focus on the Senate position.

  16. Well, at least I need not bother to vote in the primary now, although I think Rand’s name will still be on the ballot here in Virginia.

  17. Part of me is tempted to vote for Bernie though (in the primary).

    1. I’ve been thinking the same thing. Not that I like Bernie one little bit, but since the GOP’s got nothing for me, it would amuse a tin foil hat wearing libertarian nut case like me greatly to be able to say that I voted for a socialist.

  18. just before I saw the bank draft 4 $9950 , I didn’t believe that…my… brothers friend had been actualey bringing home money in their spare time on their apple labtop. . there friend brother has been doing this 4 only about and recently cleared the dept on there place and bourt a new Jaguar XJ . linked here

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??….

    ????????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  19. just before I saw the bank draft 4 $9950 , I didn’t believe that…my… brothers friend had been actualey bringing home money in their spare time on their apple labtop. . there friend brother has been doing this 4 only about and recently cleared the dept on there place and bourt a new Jaguar XJ . linked here

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??….

    ????????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  20. The minute he jumped on the social-conservative–let’s kill Planned Parenthood bandwagon, I dropped him like a bad habit. That was pandering to the religious base which, I know, is all part of speaking to his party stuff. But maybe that’s the real problem here.

  21. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    ?????? http://www.Wage90.com

  22. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    ?????? http://www.Wage90.com

  23. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    ?????? http://www.Wage90.com

  24. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    ?????? http://www.Wage90.com

  25. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://www.Wage90.com

  26. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Workpost30.Com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.