Gary Johnson

Former NJ GOP Rep. Dick Zimmer Endorses Gary Johnson

Says Trump is neither a Republican nor a conservative while Clinton is too far to the left and untrustworthy.



Dick Zimmer, who served as a Republican congressman from New Jersey from 1993 to 1997 and ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in 1996 and 2008, has endorsed the Libertarian ticket, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, for president and vice president, the New Jersey Libertarian Party announced today.

"As far as I can recall, I've never publicly endorsed any candidate except a Republican," Zimmer wrote. "I've split my ballot and have occasionally voted Libertarian, but always as a private matter." Not this time, wrote Zimmer, describing Donald Trump as "neither a conservative nor a Republican." Trump, according to Zimmer, does not believe in the Republican "founding principles of human equality and national unity.

Zimmer declined to go the route of some other anti-Trump Republicans, who have actually endorsed Hillary Clinton, calling her "one of the most left-wing members" of the Bill Clinton administration who has only "moved much farther to the left since then."

Clinton, wrote Zimmer, "believes in far too large a role for the federal government in our economy and in our private lives." Zimmer also dismissed the Trumpkin argument that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Clinton. "Current polling does not support that assumption," Zimmer wrote, "but even if it did, I think the Republic can survive four years of Hillary as it has survived eight years of Obama. I'm not sure I can say the same about Trump."

Zimmer wrote that he had never met Johnson in person, but that he admired Johnson's record as a two-term governor in New Mexico, where was a "principled, fearless small-government fiscal conservative" and similarly admired Weld's record as governor of Massachusetts.

Zimmer noted that he did not agree with everything in the Libertarian platform, but that the same could be said of the platforms of Republican candidates he's endorsed in the past. Yet, "the Libertarian ticket is clearly superior to that of either party," wrote Zimmer. "Both Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have far more experience and success as government executives than either of the major-party presidential candidates. They are both men of honor and integrity who deeply believe in the principles of the Constitution."

Zimmer is the third former member of Congress to endorse Johnson, who was also endorsed by sitting member of Congress Rep. Scott Rigel (R-Va.) and a slew of state legislators. Johnson also so far has more daily newspaper endorsements in the general election than Donald Trump.

NEXT: Economic Freedom in the World Is Increasing

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ok, the guy is endorsing Johnson, but his argument against the Donald is that he’s not a conservative. WTF? Is that some sort of cognitive dissonance GOP style?

    1. You’re saying Trump *is* a conservative?

      1. I think he’s saying Johnson isn’t either.

          1. komik ngentot The guy supports Johnson. Johnson is definitely NOT a conservative. I think everyone can agree on that. komik xxx

            1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,.,.,.,,,,,


          2. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,.,.,.


        1. Which means there isn’t a conservative in the race, so conservatives have to look at non-conservatives. Like Gary Johnson.

          No cognitive dissonance at all.

      2. No. Let me explain.

        The guy supports Johnson. Johnson is definitely NOT a conservative. I think everyone can agree on that.

        The guy’s reasoning for not supporting Trump is that Trump is NOT a conservative. And I agree that Trump is not a conservative.

        That doesn’t really tell us much about why he supports Johnson and seems to be a contradiction if anything.

        Hillary too far left is self explanatory.

        1. I would guess that he thinks the election is among Trump, Clinton, Stein and Johnson* – of those four, Johnson is closest to what many conservatives want. I mean, you’re grading on a curve here.

          But I’m sorry I at first misunderstood your point.

          *My guess is he ignores or dismisses Castle.

        2. Johnson is a fiscal conservative.

          1. He’s fiscally moderate (unless he can “wave a magic wand”), but that seems to be the best we can hope for in this political climate.

            1. Yeah, that’s a more accurate description of Johnson. He’s more of a civil libertarian than he is a fiscal conservative. He’s all sorts of wishy washy on a lot of things though.

              1. Johnson talks about cutting 20% from the budget, which is not a moderate position. As for specific things he’s mentioned he’d cut, it amounts to $143 billion in cuts where as Trump and Hillary’s specific proposals amount to an increase of $18 billion and $198 billion, according to the NTUF.

                Also, I think some of Johnson’s cuts are assumed to be phased in over four years and they calculate just the first year.

        3. That means he thinks Johnson is more of a republican and conservative than trump. Johnson is a ‘true’ conservative’s conservative.

          1. Really? Because a lot of conservatives I know want people thrown in a rape cage for smoking cannabis. Johnson doesn’t seem to think that. He only wants that to happen to people who do other drugs.

    2. his argument against the Donald is that he’s not a conservative.

      if the definition of “conservative” is a strictly “smaller-govt”-argument, then sure, Trump is nowhere near a conservative.

      Hell, Trump isn’t a conservative on… anything, really.

      That said, i’m sort of skeptical that anybody who was successful in NJ politics for very long is anything of a genuine ‘conservative’ himself. And “Republican “founding principles of human equality and national unity” is some New-Agey feelgood-horseshit.

      Also, – this here =

      I think the Republic can survive four years of Hillary as it has survived eight years of Obama. I’m not sure I can say the same about Trump.

      This pretense that someone – anyone – simply being elected represents an existential-threat to the Republic?

      A lot of people wave this idea around. Its an epic-amplification of the “Ppresident as God-Head” concept, in which all of the nation’s collective-being is projected into the persona of the Executive.

      Trump isn’t just a blustering fool; he’s the Fucking Antichrist, poised to tear down the walls of the cathedral.

      People who say this shit are really just revealing things about themselves; they so desperately rely on the fiction of “Top Men”-Experts in Govt, and the idea of Government as the source of American Vitality, that a goofball like Trump completely ruins their fantasy.

      1. Trump isn’t just a blustering fool; he’s the Fucking Antichrist, poised to tear down the walls of the cathedral.

        This is my greatest hope for a Trump presidency

        1. I understand what you mean;

          But i think its a vanity regardless of whether you think its “good” or “the end of the world as we know it”.

          It would be neither. He’d be a somewhat-entertaining goofball who’d – at best – erode American belief that the presidency is some sanctified office only held by Anointed, God-Like people who deserve to wield unchecked power

          they’d realize that Presidents are really just “Salesmen-in-Chief”. They’re guys who make speeches every few months and try and convince people the shitty job the govt happens to be doing at the moment *matters* in some way, and that the American people are getting their money’s worth.

          1. they’d realize that Presidents are really just “Salesmen-in-Chief”.

            This is exactly why I see the Donald as the “lesser of two evils” (while Hillary is “the evil of two lessers”).

    3. I Make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $75h to $86h?Go to this website and click tech tab to start your own business… Go this web….

  2. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $14000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week… Go to this website and click tech tab for more info..This Web?

  3. Random things

    Neuroscientific research on mice suggests that some experiences can influence subsequent generations. In a study,[3][4] mice trained to fear a specific smell passed on their trained aversion to their descendants, which were then extremely sensitive and fearful of the same smell, even though they had never encountered it, nor been trained to fear it.

    Changes in brain structure were also found. The researchers concluded that “The experiences of a parent, even before conceiving, markedly influence both structure and function in the nervous system of subsequent generations.”[5]

    Scientists speculate that similar genetic mechanisms could be linked with phobias, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders, as well as other neuropsychiatric disorders, in humans.

    Deadly ambush in Afghanistan: raw video

    Map of every country’s top export:…..ued-export

  4. Clinton is too far to the left and untrustworthy.

    Yeah, but she’s predictably untrustworthy.

    1. To the extent you can predict which leftist causes are popular at any given time, or which donor will have most influence at any given time.

  5. OT:

    Trigger warning, millennials:

    Yeah, that’s right, millennials, you’re going in the basket of deplorables. And you still have to get off my lawn!

    1. Could Millennials Cost Clinton the Presidency?

      Yes, the fault is with the voters, not the candidate.

      1. Well, millennials as well as blacks, latinos, other assorted minorites, women, gays, etc, etc have all been informed that they are owned by the Democrats. So if they don’t want to get into that basket of deplorables, they had better start listening to their masters and vote when and how they are told.

        And for some reason, I don’t want to put 2 Ns in millennials. It’s just more typing than the snowflake generation deserves. They can type their own fucking Ns!

        1. Democrats…claiming to own minorities since the days of Jefferson!

          1. +1 “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years”

            1. “Circling back to the quote with which we started, it wouldn’t have been entirely out of character for LBJ to have said something like, “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for 200 years,” but on balance we have to question its authenticity.”


              1. If I wasn’t lazy, I’d fish out my link for some time back where Woodrow Wilson wrote about benevolent masters on the plantations.

                1. Here we go

                  It’s the passage beginning at the bottom of p. 195 and ending on the top of p. 197.

      2. You’re right, the article phrased that in an…interesting way.

        “Why are they trying to escape our plantation? Haven’t we always treated them well, giving them an extra ration on holidays and only beating them when they really deserved it?”

    2. Could Millennials Cost Clinton the Presidency?

      I’ma guess they answer “no” based on the other links on that page.

      1. They’ll answer “whatever.”

        And turn down that music. That damned hippity-hop is bleeding outa yer airbuds, and everybody else on the bus can hear it!

    3. “The Clin?ton cam?paign knows it has a prob?lem with young voters and is pro?mot?ing five events in Ohio with Bernie Sanders and Eliza?beth War?ren this week?end as ones that “lay out the stakes for mil?len?ni?al voters.””

      Ooh, yes, I totally encourage them to tongue-lash young voters for not voting Democrat, maybe saying there’s a special place in hell for them if they support a third party.

      1. And they could also tell young women “stop supporting third parties, I don’t care how many cute boys you meet, this is serious, put down your makeup and vote Democratic.”

      2. Vote for us or we hate you and you’re going in the basket of deplorables! No free college, you ungrateful little shits!

        1. …and be sure to call them ignorant.

          1. And look at all the great stuff we’ve done for you! We made you buy insurance you don’t want or need, or else pay a big ass fucking fine! Now thank us!

        2. “It’s truly a shame that the youth vote in this country is so low…oh wait, they’re not voting for what I want? Stupid little children, raise the voting age to 25!”

      3. Two sell outs telling those they sold out not to sell out.

    4. In a two-way con?test, Clin?ton leads by 5 (Quin?nipi?ac) and 2 (CBS/NYT). In a four-way race, Clin?ton’s lead shrinks to 2 (Quin?nipi?ac) or dis?ap?pears en?tirely (CBS/NYT). Without John?son and Stein in the field, Clin?ton holds a sub?stan?tial lead over Trump with mil?len?ni?als. But her 21-point ad?vant?age over Trump among mil?len?ni?als shrinks to just 5 points when John?son and Stein are on the bal?lot.

      I expect the shrieking hysteria will be amped up shortly

      1. Yeah, I linked that recently.

        Cutting to the chase:

        “Under Johnson, rich people would be richer, poor people would be poorer, and sick people would be sicker. Our only hope would be that the country could get too baked to notice.”

        Ha ha, because he smokes the weed and wants it legal, ha ha!

      2. You can’t make this stuff up.

        ‘A 20 percent single-year cut in federal spending would still be an absolute disaster?and yes, he would bring the budget into balance entirely through spending cuts, as he’s barred any tax increases. (Consider, too, what it would mean in the likely event of a recession to have a president who will refuse to enact anything but a balanced budget.)”

        1. Well, I know keeping more of my own money would kick me out on the street and have me eating out of dumpsters. I mean, come on.

          1. Well, I mean just look at the lefts record on predictions and be very afraid. Aren’t the Brits all supposed to be eating out of trash cans by now because of Brexit?

      3. It’s a very real possibility that Johnson could hand Trump the win, being as the race is going to be so close. 1 or 2% could realistically do that.

    5. “I just kept hitting my wife and telling her it was for her own good, and now that bitch has called the cops.”

    6. If they can’t handle chalk writings of trump what will the poor little babies do when the go into the voting booth and see trump’s name on the ballot. I hope there is a counselor at the polling stations.

      1. They aren’t going to go, it’s not a safe space.

  6. “I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons. They should disarm, right?” Trump asked the crowd at a Miami rally. “Take their guns away, she doesn’t want guns. Take their ? and let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away. OK, it would be very dangerous.”

    Trump said this, which is I guess bad and dangerous and hitler.

    1. Apparently when an anti second amendment democrat is told they should disarm their armed militia protecting them that is paramount to a call for an assignation.

      1. You said assignation, not assassination.

        1. Pro was flashing back to Bill!

    2. This is a point lots of gun rights supporters have made in the past — the hypocrisy of liberal elites surrounded by armed bodyguards saying that nobody needs to have a gun for self-defense.

      As he often does, Trump takes a valid point and delivers it in the most abrasive and brain-shutting-off way possible. I know the point, you know the point, but we weren’t going to vote for Hillary anyway. The independents and disaffected Democrats who he needs to vote for him will interpret what he said as suggesting that somebody attack Hillary.

      1. Why would anyone attack her? All they need to do is have a little patience and wait for the next seizure to kill her, or make her a vegetable.

        1. Dude seriously. That’s the message most fence-sitters are going to get.

          This is what happens when the GOP nominates a liberal clownish attention whore who’s made his living making outrageous statements and is just regurgitating what he’s heard from conservatives. If it were a real candidate, even an insincere conservative, they would be more careful to phrase it in a way that didn’t sound like a threat.

        2. And this is how Trump is especially destructive to conservatism: every time a gun rights supporter makes that point, the leftists are going to associate them with Trump. Same as they’ve done with Bush the past 8 years.

          He’s a stinking albatross on the GOP and conservatism in general, and will be for many years. You Trumpist morons have really fucked things up for limited government in this country.

          1. You Trumpist morons

            I thought we were all Gary Johnson morons?

            make up your mind, troll.

            1. IIRC Hyperion is a Trump supporter.

              1. “if you remember correctly”

                is the idea you just throw out insults, accusing everyone of being “Trumpists” based on your fuzzy recollection of things not actually said here?

                1. IIRC = “If I’m reading correctly”

                  He has certainly been stumping for Trump in this thread.

          2. This.

            Most leftists think that the Republican Party is basically made up of anarcho-capitalists. So every cronyist, big-government fuckup that the Republicans pull off is going to be blamed on free market principles.

  7. I wonder if old Dick thought reps were throwing their vote away by not voting for mccain, or romney.

    1. Johnson Gets Dick

      Dick stands up for Johnson

      You get the idea

      1. Came here for this. Wasn’t disappointed.

  8. You guys are still whining about the 15% standard for the debates? Jesus Christ people.

    Free market solution: start your own debate organization that has whatever standards you want for inclusion. Invite Gary Johnson. Invite Jill Stein. Invite the Constitution Party. Invite the dead gorilla. Find somebody willing to broadcast it and an audience willing to watch it, and wala, the CPD’s standards would be irrelevant because the market has spoken.

    You know, how the free market you supposedly support for everything else?

    But here we see you complaining that you can’t force the major party candidates to debate your guy and can’t force the networks to broadcast it. How libertarian!

    1. You’re pretending that the networks are open to broadcasting alternate events. the debate committee and the networks basically collude to restrict any competition.

      the retarded pretense that = “”the status-quo is already a ‘free market’ and that if results happen to favor the Status-quo serving pols, well, that’s just the market working!” ?

      That’s one of the stupidest and most shopworn arguments of the brain-dead progressive.

      I agree, however, that there can/should be alternate events, on cable or internet streaming or whatever. But believing that there should be more venues for debate isn’t agreeing that the status quo is in any way fair, and not designed to restrict any competition from 3rd parties.

      1. Exactly. S1 seems unaware that he already did that with Jill Stein, in 2012. Only RT America would host it. And RT America is pretty damn far from a ‘free market’ station.

        1. Also there’s rumours this year of a debate on the Young Turks, which would probably only be acceptable if someone tapes Uygur’s mouth shut and keeps him away from a moderation desk.

          1. Basically, Reason is saying that Johnson has a right to the audience that Trump and Clinton draw to the TV. Which is unlibertarian in the extreme.

            1. Oh no, Reason wants their preferred candidates in the debates run by a nonprofit! And they’re prepared to…suggest that Johnson be part of the debates! The force, the coercion!

              Actually, they’re not claiming Johnson has a right to anything, they’re just stating their preferences. And you’re a moron putting words into their mouths and thinking it’s some brilliant gotcha.

              1. Bullshit. They claimed it violated the CPD’s tax exempt status, called it censorship, etc.

                (the tax-exempt argument is hypocritical considering that Reason is the mouthpiece of a tax-exempt org and hardly evenhanded in its coverage)

                1. Yeah, get back to me when Reason claims to be a nonpartisan debate commission.

                  1. LOL. Is a “nonpartisan debate commission” subject to special regulation under your version of libertarianism or something?

                    The basis of Johnson and Reason’s complaint is that CPD is tax-exempt. This supposedly requires that they be even handed in their treatment of the candidates (which is BS, as the Reason Foundation certainly isn’t, and shouldn’t be).

        2. As I said, a necessary component would be an audience willing to watch it. Stein and Johnson alone would not get many viewers who are not already devoutly following one or the other.

          1. Prophesying is the soul of religion and climate pseudoscience.

      2. You’re pretending that the networks are open to broadcasting alternate events. the debate committee and the networks basically collude to restrict any competition.

        Baloney. If it drew viewers the networks would broadcast it. Whatever political bias they have takes a back seat to making money.

        The real obstacle to the strategy I laid out would be that Clinton and Trump would refuse to participate, which would cost you a buttload of viewers who wouldn’t bother watching a bunch of people with no chance of winning.

      3. he retarded pretense that = “”the status-quo is already a ‘free market’ and that if results happen to favor the Status-quo serving pols, well, that’s just the market working!” ?

        Which part of this debate process is not a free market? You have a bunch of private broadcast networks, scads of private cable networks, all in competition for viewers. Sure, the D’s and R’s can refuse to participate in an alternative debate, but that’s freedom of association (which the LP candidate may shit on, but is still supposedly a tenet of libertarianism). So tell me where the coercion is.

        But believing that there should be more venues for debate isn’t agreeing that the status quo is in any way fair, and not designed to restrict any competition from 3rd parties.

        Your belief about what “should be” does not justify forcing the CPD to host anybody they don’t want to, does not justify forcing a TV network to broadcast it, and does not justify forcing the D’s or R’s participation in it.

        Or, as Walter Sobchak would put it more succinctly,

        “Fair? Who’s the fucking libertarian around here, you bunch of fucking crybabies?”

        1. You’re correct of course. Nobody giving a fuck about Johnson= market failure is their premise.

        2. “”Which part of this debate process is not a free market?””

          You’re the only one pretending that this is a ‘market’ issue in the first place.

          You pretending that the political-process is the same as an economic marketplace, and that the Duoply powers of the major parties are analogous to the outcome of “free market” processes, and the Duopoly influence they wield to reduce competition from any smaller parties is entirely consistent with Libertarian “free market ideas”.

          All you’re doing is parading your retarded, distorted view of what “free markets” mean, and applying it (inappropriately) to the political process…. and then pretending that libertarians must accept this result because its the consequence of their same “Free market” (*again, wrongly understood) ideas.

          But why bother explaining your own stupidity back to you? you’re an idiot troll.

          FWIW, I don’t personally give a shit about Johnson, and i don’t really care what the debate committee decides. Its just – following from my own personal view of how the market can respond, and not any purely-libertarian instinct at all – going to lead to a loss of credibility for the debate institution (the same way this campaign has eroded the credibility of the mass media), and in the future we’ll have more competitive venues.

          The above point doesn’t grant any validity to your own retardation. Its just my perspective that manipulation of the democratic process will eventually undermine itself.

          1. You pretending that the political-process is the same as an economic marketplace

            No, I’m not. I’m just stating that Johnson is not in the debates because of (a) the constitutional right to freedom of association of the D’s and R’s in refusing to be in a debate with him, and (b) the market forces that preclude a Johnson-Stein-etc debate from being widely broadcast and watched. There is absolutely no coercion involved in the debate process.

            1. There’s something in what you say. However, let’s not forget that government pays for and administers the primaries that choose the R and D candidates. When it comes to the L party (and all others) they do nothing but throw up roadblocks.

              1. The ballot access system sucks, I agree.

                Note that Reason’s position seems to be that inclusion in the debate should be based on ballot access, a far more rigged system than the opinion polls. What is their justification for a ballot standard being fairer than an opinion poll standard? Who knows. But it does favor the LP over other third parties, which leads to some very unfortunate suspicions.

            2. the constitutional right to freedom of association

              Something libertarians often assert- but not in the context of anti-competitive business practices.

              are you a libertarian, or do you just pickpocket libertarian ideas and misapply them for amusement?

              While the United States Constitution’s First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.[4]

              What you’re talking about is political parties colluding w/ media to reduce access by 3rd parties, and pretending that this is – via your Gerble-Garble method of randomly throwing out “Free Market” assertions, and “Constitutional Rights” – somehow perfectly “libertarian”

              You don’t seem to actually understand any of the things you’re appealing to.

              1. Well that’s an interesting question. Strictly NAP-based libertarianism provides no room for restraining anti-competitive business practices unless they rise to the level of coercion. So the orthodox libertarian position would be against all antitrust laws, for example. Indeed this seems to be Reason’s position on antitrust.

                Some libertarians would say that we have to make compromises with reality when it comes to industries that inherently tend towards consolidation, to prevent those markets from becoming noncompetitive. Back when there was just the big 3 networks, that case could have been made about the debates. But now it really doesn’t seem to apply with all the TV choices people have.

                Not sure what the point of quoting the wiki text was; are you denying that freedom of association is a constitutional right?

                1. It is almost like a direct reference to the Solomon Asch experiment. Any gang of conspirators can get a weak-minded fool to to practically anything dishonest or stupid just by associating and giving off low-key social pressure vibrations. Search “Asch Experiment, elevator” and it is a textbook example of how socialism pulls the suckers in despite the death camps, firing squads, snipers to shoot fugitives, internal passports, alcohol prohibition and even (ghasp!) BEER SHORTAGES, as in bolivarista Venzuelan marxism. People get into the elevator, face the rear, and the new chumps turn and face the rear…
                  But… didn’t the S1 go down with all hands in 1929?

            3. Tricky Dick Nixon used the IRS code to throw up the first anti-libertarian roadblock the same week the LP filed its organization papers as a party. Tricky was pals with Herbert Hoover, another republican with great prohibitionist economic policies…

  9. Dickzimmer? I just met her!

  10. another politician nobody has ever heard of and who hasn’t been in office for nearly 20 years endorses Gary. Yippee! Time to don the rally caps!

  11. Why not? When it was clear that the Federalist party had degenerated into a pack of boodling looters, James Bayard of Delaware crossed party lines to lend support for the upstart Thomas Jefferson. Nobody misses the Federalists OR the Whigs…

  12. “Both Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have far more experience and success as government executives than either of the major-party presidential candidates. They are both men..

    oh dear.

  13. Failed politician makes endorsement. World does not shake.

  14. Black Magic Specialist Provide You Astrology Solution By Black Magic Specialist.

  15. Here, let me help,

    “As far as I can recall, I’ve never publicly endorsed any candidate ,” Zimmer wrote

    There, fixed that for you.

  16. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.


  17. upto I looked at the bank draft four $5963 , I be certain that…my… best friend woz like they say actualy bringing home money parttime on there computar. . there friends cousin has been doing this 4 less than 13 months and resently took care of the debts on their apartment and bought a new Mazda . check out here .

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>>

  18. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.