Drug War

Philippine President Says Trump Supports His Murderous Antidrug Campaign

The president-elect "understood the way we are handling it," says Rodrigo Duterte.

|

YouTube

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte claims Donald Trump endorsed his bloody war on drugs, which has killed thousands of people since Duterte took office last summer, in a telephone conversation on Saturday. Duterte's account of the call has not been confirmed by Trump's transition team, but it is both plausible and alarming.

"He was quite sensitive…to our worry about drugs," Duterte said. "He wishes me well, too, in my campaign, and he said that, well, we are doing it as a sovereign nation, the right way….He was wishing me success in my campaign against the drug problem. He understood the way we are handling it, and I said that there's nothing wrong in protecting a country. It was a bit very encouraging in the sense that I supposed that what he really wanted to say was that we would be the last to interfere in the affairs of your own country."

Given Trump's "law and order" rhetoric, admiration for strongmen, and simpleminded approach to drug policy, I have little trouble believing that he said something like that to Duterte, but I hope he did so without understanding what the latter's "campaign against the drug problem" actually entails, which is also sadly plausible given the president-elect's disdain for detailed knowledge and expert advice. But the signal of approval that Duterte perceived is disturbing in any case, since it reinforces his belief that suppressing drug use is important enough to justify indiscriminate extrajudicial killings.

Duterte, who campaigned on a promise to "kill them all" and fill Manila Bay with the bodies of criminals, does not recognize a distinction between suspects and convicts, between predatory and consensual offenses, or even between drug dealers and drug users, both of which he says should be wiped out. "These sons of whores are destroying our children," he told a crowd in a poor neighborhood of Manila after taking office. "I warn you, don't go into that, even if you're a policeman, because I will really kill you…If you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourself as getting their parents to do it would be too painful." In September he likened himself to Hitler, telling reporters "there are 3 million drug addicts" in the Philippines, and "I'd be happy to slaughter them." Duterte has encouraged police to shoot first and ask questions later, promising pardons for cops accused of using excessive force against suspected drug dealers.

Duterte, like Trump, is prone to rhetorical excess, but his words have had deadly consequences. According to the Philippine National Police, more than 5,800 people have been killed in connection with Duterte's war on drugs since he took office on July 1. The government says more than 2,000 were "suspected drug personalities killed in police operations," while more than 3,800 died in "extrajudicial or vigilante-style killings."

Duterte's bloodthirsty antidrug campaign has been condemned by human rights groups, the Obama administration, the United Nations, and the European Union. He has responded with insults and death threats.

Did Trump consider all of this and nevertheless pat Duterte on the shoulder? "It sounds like Donald Trump just gave a green light to murder," says Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "By effectively giving his blessing to Duterte's murderous campaign, the president-elect has signaled to foreign leaders his disregard for both due process of law and human rights—and raised the possibility that he might one day treat U.S. law with the same contempt."

It seems more likely that Trump is only dimly aware of what is happening in the Philippines but likes the idea of getting tough on drugs. Back in 1990, when Trump said "you have to legalize drugs to win that war," he also suggested that drug law enforcement was "a joke" because politicians "don't have any guts." More recently, he has emphasized the latter theme. "If we police properly," he said last year, "we shouldn't [legalize drugs]."

Trump's idea of proper policing sounds like a caricature of a clueless drug warrior who thinks a lack of serious effort is the only reason prohibition has been failing for more than a century. "I'm going to create borders," he promised in a campaign video. "No drugs are coming in. We're gonna build a wall. You know what I'm talking about. You have confidence in me. Believe me, I will solve the problem."

The charitable interpretation of Trump's alleged support for Duterte's homicidal drug policy is that he is not up on the details but perceives a kindred spirit in the Philippine president: a man determined to get things done no matter what his critics say. That explanation is troubling enough, since details matter and critics can be right, especially when they object to state-sanctioned murder.

NEXT: Brickbat: Don't Be a Doormat

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. Oh, FFS. “Phillipine President says…” Stop right there.

    So, Trump is worse than Adam Lanza with a Hitler mustache and leads a cadre of secret Nazis who will soon be roaming the streets looking to burn Trigglypuff at the stake.

    How long before Trump is accused of being a cannibal, worse than Idi Amin? Is the Trump tower filled with lampshades made from human skin? Does Trump sit on a throne made of human skulls?

    You people need to get the fuck hold of yourselves.

    1. Yep, another stupid Trump article. I’ll get concerned when Trump starts spouting off and saying what Duterte says he said in a way that’s, you know, verifiable.

      1. Besides Trump has an advisor who is investing in the Marley brand. Peter Thiel http://classicalvalues.com/201…..marijuana/

    2. Yep, because Sullum is the one engaging in soaring hyperbole and unfounded accusations.

    3. “Is the Trump tower filled with lampshades made from human skin? Does Trump sit on a throne made of human skulls?”

      Both plausible and alarming!

      1. And classy!

    4. [A] cadre of secret Nazis who will soon be roaming the streets looking to burn Trigglypuff at the stake.

      Achtung! Ve shall needz ourselffs zat izza bicker boot voodpiles, jabohl mein frointz?

    5. I understand that Ducunte’s claim is ridiculous. It’s the lack of a response from The Donald that I’m concerned about.

  2. The charitable interpretation of Trump’s alleged support for Duterte’s homicidal drug policy is that he is not up on the details but perceives a kindred spirit in the Philippine president: a man determined to get things done no matter what his critics say.

    The less charitable interpretation is that he is up on the details and perceives a kindred spirit in the Philippine president: a man determined to get things done no matter what his critics and the law and common sense and a sense of decency say.

    Trump is a bit of a flatworm with a primitive response system – say something nice about him and you’re a wonderful fellow, say something bad about him and you’re a pathetic loser. (His supporters are somewhat similar wrt anything said about Der Trumpenfuehrer as well. Criticize their tiny-handed orange god for saying nice things about a really shitty fuckstick of a Marcos wannabe and they start flopping around histrionically about how you’re calling him Hitler and comparing him to Idi Amin. Those people need to get the fuck hold of themselves.)

    1. Read the article Jerry. Good grief.

      “Duterte’s account of the call has not been confirmed by Trump’s transition team, but it is both plausible and alarming.”

      ” “He was wishing me success in my campaign against the drug problem. He understood the way we are handling it, and I said that there’s nothing wrong in protecting a country. “(meaning murdering people in the street without charges or trial)

      “Given Trump’s “law and order” rhetoric, admiration for strongmen, and simpleminded approach to drug policy, I have little trouble believing that he said something like that to Duterte,…”

      “But the signal of approval that Duterte perceived is disturbing in any case, since it reinforces his belief that suppressing drug use is important enough to justify indiscriminate extrajudicial killings.”

      “Did Trump consider all of this and nevertheless pat Duterte on the shoulder? “It sounds like Donald Trump just gave a green light to murder,” says Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.”

      This is simply not sane and publishing this without some kind of confirmation is not responsible journalism. It’s pure hysteria. None of it is consistent with the things Trump has said, his past statements or behavior or anything that his supporters endorse.

      1. None of it is consistent with the things Trump has said, his past statements or behavior or anything that his supporters endorse.

        Which things Trump has said? His 1990 statement that “you have to legalize drugs to win that war” or his statement from last year when he said “If we police properly, we shouldn’t [legalize drugs]” (whatever the hell “polic[ing] properly means – I can only assume he means “having guts” and cracking down hard).

        As for what his supporters endorse, who the fuck knows. I don’t think his supporters have a single monolithic viewpoint. Some are probably law and order conservatives who have latched onto his statements from last year as proof that he’s going to crack down on all those dope smoking hippies that are ruining ‘murrica. Because MAGA! Others, like yourself, see his previous statement from 1990 about legalizing drugs and have latched onto that as proof that he’s secretly a crypto-libertarian on drug policy because they want to believe.

        As with most things Trump, he’s put out enough conflicting statements about the issue that his supporters see/ hear whatever they want to hear. Given his choice of an unrepentant drug warrior as Attorney General, I highly doubt we’re going to see 1990 Trump when it comes to federal drug policy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just as delusional as all those TDS sufferers out there.

        1. About 41% of the people who voted for Trump in Florida voted for medical pot. And that is by simple math. It may have been more.

          You think Trump doesn’t know that?

          This is your election on drugs

      2. If this call in fact did take place, anything by Trump short of an outright condemnation is unacceptable. If there was an outright condemnation, I do not believe Duterte would be spouting off. What we are talking about is a form of genocide. The US, and Trump, MUST begin treating Duterte as we do other genocidal dictators.

        1. You are really stretching it by naming it genocide. Extrajudicial killings such as is occurring in the Philippines is awful, but as it does not target a race/ethnicity of people it is not a genocide. To expand the term as you wish to do would simultaneously diminish the term as well as reclassify many other nations we deal with (Russia, China, etc) as being beyond the pale, diminishing our capabilities to use diplomacy when dealing with other nations and increasing the likelihood of war.

          1. You can have genocide without ethnic cleansing. But OK, if you don’t like “genocide,” how about mass killings? Children are being shot.

  3. All right, Mr Duterte, please show us on the doll where a drug user touched you.

    The rest of you, show us on the doll where Trump grabbed you.

    Seems some form of Derangement is now a worldwide pandemic.

    1. [Points to amygdyla]

  4. I’ll preface this by saying that: I think that all drugs should be at the very least decriminalized, if not legalized. Furthermore, the summary execution of people who have not even been given a fair trial with adequate evidence to prove guilt is a massive miscarriage of justice, and a human rights disaster.

    Having said that, bitching about fair trials doesn’t solve what many people in the Philippines clearly see as a big enough problem in drug addiction and drug trafficking to elect Duterte on a one policy (Kill the druggies/dealers!) platform.

    This is why Trump got elected, because the liberals and globalists both failed to provide solutions that worked for people, so everyone has been saying, fuck it, let’s vote for the crazy blowhard who says he’ll just shoot people in the streets.

    Brexit, the failed Columbia peace deal, Duterte, Trump, the failed Italy constitutional referendum, it’s all related. Jeezus, just let me bask in the schadenfreude of Trumps victory over the turd sandwich before he starts doing whatever crazy stuff he has planned.

    1. “…the crazy blowhard who says he’ll just shoot people in the streets.”

      I don’t think that is what he said.

      1. I’m talking about Duterte.
        http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../86936916/

        But I guess that a weak argument could be made for Trump.
        http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/…..y-support/

        1. Ah. Well Duarte did say that. My apologies.

        2. But I guess that a weak argument could be made for Trump.

          Trump has joked about killing people before.

          Last month, he appeared to consider whether he would kill journalists, as Russian President Vladimir Putin — whom Trump defended — has been accused of doing.

          I would never kill them. I would never do that,” Trump told supporters in Grand Rapids, Michigan, before reconsidering.

          “Uh, let’s see, uh?” he said aloud, his voice rising. “No, I would never do that.”

          (emphasis mine)

          Umm, no. No argument can be made at all, actually. Denial ain’t just the name of Fist’s Angry Prostate.

          1. I think he did say if he shot someone in the street his supporters would still vote for him. It was metaphorical, of course, and not serious. He meant to illustrate how strong support was for him.

            So, no, you are correct. no credible case could be made.

  5. Hey,Trump was named ‘Time Person of the Year’ . Just like Hitler. Discuss.

    1. I’m more amazed that ‘Time’ magazine hasn’t gone out of business. Who is their readership?

      1. Dentist office waiting rooms.

        1. Because I need another reason to not want to go.

        2. Dentist office waiting rooms.

          But they only need a new issue at most once every six months, possibly once every two or three years.

          1. They have to put out the worst kind of crap to keep it from walking off.

          2. Not quite.

            Believe it or not, the variety of and how recent the magazine selections in our waiting rooms (especially the language) is a major gripe (dead tree magazines are actually preferred in UKR, since our hospital rather strictly enforces turning fones off, in the Waiting Rooms, for patient privacy), despite the prevalence of smertfones these days.

            Or at least it was in The States, particularly with Seasoned Citizens and others of The Blue Hair Set, back when I was at the surgicentre. I guess something about the feel of real pages and the act of turning them can put someone at ease. I dunno.

            1. I was actually joking with regards to the rate of replacement. (Most people won’t be in there more than twice a year.)

              1. So noted, UCS.

                Some folks, even if it’s a plain ole’ check up and cleaning, can still get apprehensive or flat out anxious, and especially if it’s a consult or something that is invasive and req. anaesthesia, either local or general.

            2. Yeah, I look forward to reading magazines previously handled by lepers, flu sufferers, and cholera victims.

              1. Yeah, I look forward to reading magazines previously handled by lepers, flu sufferers, and cholera victims.

                1) Antibacti foam dispensers and masks;

                2) Contagious people get their own waiting area;

                3) Ever touch a doorknob or gasoline pump handle?

                4) If not currently in an exclusive, monogamous, relationship, those magazines may pale in comparison to your past/current dating HX, T. I assume you rigourously vetted who handled them previously, too, no? *grins*

                1. +1 anti-bacterial lube in a 55 gallon drum

      2. I have an acquaintance who has been incarcerated for two years now. Pretty sure his subscription has lapsed, yet still gets Time weekly in the mail.

    2. Joke: What’s the difference between a dentist and a sadist?

      The sadist has a better collection of magazines.

      My own dentist got defensive when I told him that.

      1. You’re lucky he didn’t knock your teeth out you anti-Dentite bastard!

        1. They should have their own schools.

      2. “Is it safe?”

      3. My last dentist had a copy of Maus in his waiting room.

    3. You beat me to it.

    4. Person of the year isn’t and was never intended to be an accolade, it’s the person who, in Times’ opinion, has had the most effect on the world that year, whether for good or bad.

  6. Wake and Bake!

  7. Yeah, I don’t think so. I don’t however believe that our WOD is going to get any better considering the Sessions pick.

    1. Now that is plausible and alarming. I am greatly disappointed by some of his picks and Sessions is near the top of the list.

      1. I don’t know that much about him, however, I doubt he’ll turn out half as evil as many panicked observers moan.

        I just can’t see him saying fuck states rights and stepping up federal action WRT cannabis. That way only leads to hurt for the GOP.

        1. I just can’t see him saying fuck states rights and stepping up federal action WRT cannabis. That way only leads to hurt for the GOP.

          I tend to agree with this, actually. Domestic WOD stuff is not why Troomp selected Sessions, methinks. Moreso for immigration and border legal cases, primarily, and as a reward for stalwart loyalty throughout Troomp’s campaign.

          I, for one, am hoping Sessions, provided he is confirmed (there is no guarantee on that, to be perfectly frank) he pursues shitbags like Koskinen and any other sleazy 4th Branch Alfabet Soup types. It’s also entirely possible (and likely) Troomp has a second nominee lined up should Sessions FAIL his confirmation hearing.

  8. We Ned to give The Duterino temporary Judge Dredd status in Chicago and San Francisco: America would be made great again!

  9. Reason magazine, from Free Markets and Free Minds to Trump derangement syndrome all the fucking time…

    1. If anyone here has Trump Derangement Syndrome, its mostly the commenters. I don’t recall people freaking out about Obama coverage when he was elected. If reporting on a call between national leaders on drug policy isn’t news, one of whom is a monstrous tyrant leading the mass slaughter of his own people and the other being the next President of the USA, then nothing is.

      1. There’s a difference between reporting and editorializing, although in this regard Reason is behind the curve vis-a-vis the mainstream media, which has decided that editorializing is reporting.

  10. “These sons of whores are destroying our children”

    Looks like little Mr. potty mouth is asking for a timeout.

  11. “It was a bit very encouraging in the sense that I supposed that what he really wanted to say was that we would be the last to interfere in the affairs of your own country.”

    This is why Rodrigo pulls down the big bucks.

  12. Another interpretation of this may be that Trump was able to start pulling the mercurial Dutere back into America’s orbit (and out of China’s orbit) with mere words that didn’t really cost America anything.

    The Philippines is a strategic ally in the balance of power against China, and if Obama lost or endangered the benefit of that relationship because he wouldn’t say the words necessary to smooth Dutere’s feathers, even in private, then America’s interests were being poorly served by Obama.

    If Obama wasn’t willing to make purely symbolic gestures in private to further American interests, then it’s Obama who was behaving like an egomaniac. Getting things done sometimes involves stroking the egos of and working with people we don’t like. Sure, we made some mistakes that way during the Cold War, but we also wouldn’t have won the Cold War as we did without being willing to work with people we didn’t like.

    After the neocons rejecting pragmatism on principle during the Bush Administration and Obama’s egocentric refusal to put on the rubber gloves and clean the toilet bowl, a little pragmatism would be refreshing. Remember when we used to argue about whether we should give China MFN status despite their ongoing human rights violations? How childish was it to hold American trade and security interests hostage to moral judgments on China’s domestic policies?

    1. yeah exactly.

    2. yeah exactly.

    3. We couldn’t have won WWII without working with people we didn’t like.

      1. Absolutely. The world is filled with evil people, and sometimes working with the lesser evil against the greater evil is the right move. Politics and diplomacy are not professions for saints, and being stubbornly principled will often create a worse outcome than being a dirty pragmatist. Which is not an endorsement of carte blanche amoralism, but a recognition that not all hills are worth dying on.

      2. We might have won, but it would have been a lot more costly for us. The Soviets bled the Germans dry; while it is arguable whether the other Allies would have suffered the same casualties the Soviets did, it is beyond doubt that the Germans would have had much more manpower and materiel, as well as industrially essential resources, at their disposal to fight on the Western front if they weren’t engaged with the Soviets in the East.

  13. P.S. . . . not to mention, we obtain more influence on China (and Dutere) through engagement rather than through disengagement and aloofness. Pinochet didn’t hold elections and respect the results out of the warmness of his heart. To a critical extent, he was afraid of endangering his and Chile’s relationship with the United States.

  14. Well, yes and no. I don’t like the way the Philippines is handling the drug problem, but then again I am not a citizen of that country.

    The charitable way to interpret this is to believe that Trump supports national sovereignty. In other words it is up to people in the Philippines because it’s their country. If that’s true it’s a GOOD THING. The last 15-20 years have seen America intrude in other countries more than ever before whether it is at the point of a bayonet (neo-cons) or something that is kind of “softer” but still offensive to other countries (like Obama telling the Brits to vote “remain” or bugging Duterte when China is the real regional threat).

  15. We have had no-knock raids by police death squads here in the US against alleged petty drug dealers, and even cigarette dealers (see Eric Garner) long before Duterte or Trump, so I don’t see what the big deal is-who cares if a few innocents are killed in the process (/sarc)

  16. Trump responds favorably to foreign leaders who call him up and presumably make nice. It might be an interesting experiment if North Korea’s Kim Jong Eun placed a call: would Donald be telling us what a “swell guy” KJE is? But I suspect KJE’s Chinese paymasters would veto the idea until they have a clearer sense of how Trump will get along with China.

    1. He’s Fat Boy Kim, not KJE.

  17. Apparently, some people don’t understand how business negotiations and salesmanship work. When the car salesman compliments your kids, your wife, and your business, that doesn’t mean he actually gives a f*ck about them either way.

    Trump privately flattering a militant foreign leader on the phone hardly constitutes a public endorsement of his policies, let alone a signal that Trump is going to start murdering people in the US.

  18. Hey, I heard Raul Castro made funny faces at Trump; which Reason writer is gonna stretch that into 1500 words?

  19. Keeping the Philippines as an ally is far more important than moralistically trying to dictate to them how to run their country.

    1. What do we get from this “alliance”, exactly?

      1. The Philippines is extremely strategically well-located, for starters.

        1. And we gave up our bases there because we didn’t want to “dictate to them how to run their country”.

          1. We still get to use their ports. A base isn’t strictly necessary.

            1. And murder gangs aren’t “strictly necessary” to enforce drug policy, either. So what? We have to condone their actions so that we can keep access to their ports? How about this, you keep your ports open and don’t run murder gangs and we won’t take diplomatic and/or military actions against you?

            2. And so what if they close their ports? That’s their business, isn’t it?

  20. Of course Trump knows that Duterte’s policy is homicidal – that’s the appeal. And even if Trump doesn’t know, his followers certainly do. That’s why it’s so frightening to get accused of using drugs on the comment boards, especially as no one steps in to challenge them. Of course, articles like this help to demonstrate the danger, so thanks at least for that. It’s a good start.

    1. I write about drugs on a right wing site.

      The Trillion Dollar A Year Scam

      I’m challenging them. I’d like to see more folks doing that.

      But first you have to have some kind of harmony with the editors.

  21. “[Obama] privately flattering a militant foreign leader on the phone hardly constitutes a public endorsement of his policies, let alone a signal that Trump is going to start murdering people in the US.”

    Now assess your statement. How would you react with this one edit? Be honest.

    1. Obama and Kerry both criticized Duterte. They didn’t pull funding for the drug war, of course. But that’s a long-standing problem going back to Nixon, and all branches of government are complicit. Trump’s flattery is frightening. If he would criticize Duterte, that would be a start. Not gonna happen, of course.

    2. It’s about time [Obama] figured out how to do foreign relations.

    3. I would of course call the writer insane for even mentioning such a matter. International calls between world leaders on national policy relating to libertarian interests naturally has no place on Reason, anyone not struck by Trump Obama Derangement Syndrome wouldn’t dare utter a word on a daily blog of all places.

    4. It doesn’t mean anything different if you change the names. It matters what people do not what they whisper in each other’s ears.

  22. Duerte was popularly elected. He made quite clear before the election his ruthless plans. The populace voted for those ruthless plans. Trump is supporting the right of the Phillipines to determine their own rules. Not whether he likes those rules.

    1. Modi was democratically elected but that doesn’t make his demonitization scheme any less stupid or harmful. Winning an election puts you in the office; it doesn’t justify everything you do.

      1. And that’s a problem for the people of the Philippines to deal with. It’s not our business.

        1. It’s not our business.

          Then neither is the “strategic importance” of the location of the Phillipines.

          1. Sorry, that’s not a direct quote so it probably shouldn’t be in quotation marks.

          2. The second doesn’t follow from the first.

            1. Oh? The Philippines’ strategic value is measured relative to what end? Protecting Guam?

              1. you’re kidding, right?

                The Philippines is a tripwire against any Chinese military goals in the south pacific. Maybe relations have progress past the point where its needed, but if the last century was any indication, I wouldn’t bet that its strategic importance has disappeared.

                Same reason we’ve worked to maintain good relations with Poland….the classic tripwire for Europe.

                1. I was being sarcastic. I know why it’s strategically valuable. I’m trying to flesh out where exactly the line between “we shouldn’t tell other countries what to do” and “we should absolutely tell, cajole, and, if necessary, force other countries to do what we want” was being drawn.

    2. Yes, Duerte was elected in part on his promises of a true war on drugs. Philippines want this. What we are seeing, to put it in prog-terms is the Reason commentariat failing to understand the cultural differences and applying the US drug situation to a very foreign country.
      Judging Duerte’s actions because you associate ‘drugs’ with happy stoners in Denver and pointless raids on middle age tokers in suburbia is just sad and pathetic.
      The Philippines is the hub of the drug trade in the southern Pacific, home to a number of domestic cartels as well as 9 reported Chinese cartels. Corruption is rampant in government and law enforcement to the point where its amazing the country isn’t already a narco-state. If a foreign people want to line up drug dealers against a wall in an effort to eradicate a problem that is destroying their country, who are we to tut-tut and lecture them.

      It would be refreshing if Trump had said something along the lines of “dude, do what you gotta do. I’m not going to lecture from on high, I got my own crap to deal with. Just stop badmouthing the US constantly…it’s annoying. Peace, I’m out.”

      1. If killing drug dealers ended the drug trade, then it would have worked for North Korea by now.

        There are two levels on which what Duterte is doing is wrong. The first is that it’s not very effective since the demand for drugs is highly inelastic. So you kill a bunch of people and a bunch more take their place. Maybe the new ones are more careful or maybe they just learn how to work the system better. Regardless, the demand for drugs doesn’t go away.

        The second is the manner in which those actions are carried out. Sure, the Philippines is not Colorado. But that doesn’t make summary executions right, nor does it mean that the government should be free to act in a violent and brutal fashion justified by some bizarre form of moral relativism.

      2. Now, you could say that it’s “not our problem” but then neither is the security of that region.

  23. You know I like what the US has done so far relative to the PI (as we used to say back in the old Navy).

    Set a better example.

    We now have 8 “legal” States. And 43 that have some kind of medical cannabis law.

  24. I think you are confused. It’s the Drug runners who are murderous!

  25. two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought afterearning 18,513 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a littleover.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly layouts..it’s realy thesimplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making overhourly.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  26. til I looked at the receipt four $6371, I didnt believe that…my… mom in-law could trully receiving money in there spare time at their computer.. there friends cousin has done this for under 15 months and as of now paid the morgage on their mini mansion and got a new Infiniti. navigate to this site

    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  27. my friend’s ex-wife makes $79/hour on the internet. She has been unemployed for five months but last month her payment was $13079 just working on the internet for a few hours. check

    ==================================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  28. Brianna. true that Kathryn`s st0rry is impressive… I just received themselves a Jaguar E-type from bringing in $5324 recently and-over, ten-k this past-munth. it’s definitly the coolest work Ive ever done. I started this 3 months ago and straight away started to bring home minimum $81.. per/hr. straight from the source

    ==============> http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.