Monday, July 26, 2010

Why the House hates the Senate (and the rest of should as well)

Sandy Levinson

The Washington Post has a story on why the House properly hates the Senate. It illustrates a major problem with bicameralism, which is that it promotes a disincentive for members of a given house, whether the House or the Senate, in actually taking the initiative on a controversial issue, for fear that the rug will be pulled under them by the other house, including, of course, ostensible members of the same political party. (Perhaps the Republicans would have been successful in stopping a decent energy bill, but, of course, we'll never know, because the Democrats, bowing to their coal- and oil-industry lackeys, were decidedly unwillingn to push the point.)

A central issue in the uncoming election should be whether Joe Biden will rule that the Senate is not a continuing body and therefore can adopt its rules, including getting rid of the filibuster in its present form, by a straight majority vote. Indeed, it's an especially interesting issue precisely because it's not inconceivable (though I think it's unlikely) that the Republicans will get back the Senate. So Biden could credibly state that he will support that position even if it would give Republicans working control of the Senate, since, in the world we now live in, all that it would mean, otherwise, for Republicans to "capture the Senate" is that they could investigate the Obama Administration to their heart's content, since they certainly couldn't pass their legislative program (assuming, contrary to fact, that they actually have such a program).



This is democracy at work and has nothing to do with the filibuster. These heartland House Dems campaigned from the center-right, then pissed all over their constituents by governing from the left and are now all whiny because the Senate Dems did not join them in screwing over their constituents to provide them political cover. Time to answer to your constituents boys and girls. They are the folks with the tar, feathers and rails waiting outside.

As to the filibuster, Biden is hardly about to campaign on reversing the filibuster now that the political tide is turning. The filibuster is what may prevent his boss from vetoing popular legislation like repealing Obamacare which a GOP congress would send his way. After all, Obama has to answer to the voters in 2012 and does not want a veto trail anymore than the Senate Dems want a voting trail.

BTW Sandy, the GOP is going to release its platform in September culled from a website they have been running soliciting ideas from their constituents. The lesson the voters will deliver this November about the cost of promising one thing and delivering another had better not be lost on the GOP. What the voters give, the voters can take away.

"This is democracy at work and has nothing to do with the filibuster."

Many of the Founding Fathers were quite afraid of the idea of a peoples’ democracy. They were familiar with the then bicameral British constitutional settlement where the unelected House of Lords was a chamber composed of the “great and good” - the “great” hereditary lords temporal and the “good” lords spiritual, the “fathers in God” of the bishops of the Established Church. The Lords acted as a brake on the ambitions of the elected House of Commons.

Unsurprisingly, the Founding Fathers wished the same kind of bicameral legislature – the problem was how to ensure that the upper house would be able to act as a brake on the popularly elected house. The solution originally chosen was to require the membership to be older (and probably more conservative) and to have them indirectly chosen by the legislatures of the states – again militating for the selection of “elder statesmen” the US version of the great and good of the land.

But just as we discovered in the UK, the giving of equal legislative powers to two chambers differently composed can result in what we term “parliamentary ping-pong” where a bill goes back and forward between the two houses but cannot be enacted because the two cannot agree the text.

In the UK we have resolved the issue by the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. The Acts provide for different treatment of “money” bills. These are bills to vote supply to enable the business of government to be carried on. Taxation is the business of the peoples’ house. Therefore money bills which originate in the Commons have to be passed in the Lords within one month otherwise they go for Royal Assent anyway.

For other bills, the Lords can be bypassed if the bill is passed in two separate sessions and a year’s delay has ensued. Thus the ultimate supremacy of the elected Commons is assured – the Lords can impose a delay for reflection and further debate – but the debate cannot last forever.

Shacked as the USA is, by a constitution made deliberately hard to amend, the present US system may be republican, but it is not democratic, because the senators are not chosen on a basis by which each senator is elected from an equally sized constituency. This skews representation to favour the rural over the urban.

Matters are, of course, made worse by the provisions of the antiquated senate rules – not just filibuster – but also the processes of holds on appointments etc, which are accretions designed to empower individual senators rather than the senate as a body – equally undemocratic therefore.

So, poor dear Bart is as wrong as usual. This is not ”democracy at work” it is the process of democracy thwarted by un-democratic (i) constitutional and (ii) parliamentary provisions.

I am not against bi-cameral legislatures. I think a pause for reflection can often be a very good thing, but grid-lock brings a legislature into disrepute (as witness congressional ratings in US public opinion) and therefore a safety valve should be devised – but it’s the US constitution not mine and it's for Americans to do the devising.

Take note that our yodeler neglects to mention the Tea Party. Our yoyo-ing Mugwamp is perhaps reverting to his Bush/Cheney 1/20/01-1/20/09 calling as he informs us that:

" ... the GOP is going to release its platform in September culled from a website they have been running soliciting ideas from their constituents."

I assume this website is open to public view and may resemble an Internet tabula rasa. But our yodeler seems to be suggesting that the GOP leadership has no ideas, as demonstrated by the Do-Nothing-Republican Party since 1/20/09, and is relying upon constituents such as our dear Bushy faced , Mugwampish yoyo-ing yodeler, who may have better ideas than McConnell, Bo(eh)ner, Palin, Newt, Beck, Rush, et al ad nauseum. Perhaps our yodeler's upcoming (upchucking?) work of friction [sick!] may be Exhibit A to the GOP's jerry-built platform lacking the standards for a building permit.

Of course the GOP leadership have ideas. Just no good ones.

The real question is, as Bart suggests, whether the GOP leadership, provided with good ideas from an outside source, will have the will to actually attempt implementing them, rather than just running on them and then abandoning them.

History is not reassuring.

I take Brett's point but regarding this:

" ... whether the GOP leadership, provided with good ideas from an outside source, ...."

what, if any such good ideas have been provided to date to the GOP leadership? We are now beyond 18th months into Obama's term. If any such good ideas have been provided from an outside source since 1/20/09, what are they? Or is this a work in progress because November 2010 is fast approaching? Or is this the GOP's extension of free market outsourcing? This approach violates the meaning of leadership and a republican form of governance.

Is babon a GOP constituent who has come up with "a good idea"? Or does this reflect past GOP House Speakers who "retired" as a results of a similar "good idea"?

"We're very comfortable where we're at; we have very few members who feel endangered," said Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), a veteran Republican and a deputy whip in the House. "We feel like we are reflecting a broader mood of dissatisfaction. Right now, the American people want us saying no." [Quoted in the Washington Post].

In other words, the GOP strategy is to keep saying “No” to everything right up to the mid-terms and perhaps right up to the general election.

But a responsible opposition ought also to spell out its alternatives as a “government-in waiting” – so that the electorate can make an informed decision about what they would be voting for.

Creditably, at least one Republican, the House ranking member on the Budget Committee, has set out a program on his website: Paul Ryan: Roadmap for America’s Future.

On Social Security the roadmap:-

Preserves the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older.
Offers workers under 55 the option of investing over one third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to Federal employees.
Includes a property right so they can pass on these assets to their heirs, and a guarantee that individuals will not lose a dollar they contribute to their accounts, even after inflation.
Makes the program permanently solvent – according to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] – by combining a more realistic measure of growth in Social Security’s initial benefits, with an eventual modernization of the retirement age.

[In plain English for “modernize” substitute “raise”]

Short slogan: Vote Republican ! Your social security benefits will be cut and you’ll have to work longer before you get them!

On Taxation the roadmap:-

Promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends; also eliminates the death tax.

[In plain English – Working people will keep paying tax, but unearned income (what the idle rich live off) will be tax free].

Short slogan: Vote Republican! Let millionaires keep all of their money!

There’s plenty more. But I suspect the GOP would not want to spell out plans of this nature since I have an idea they would not go down well with focus groups.

Perhaps the Democrats could usefully spend some time on spelling out to the public just what the Republicans have in mind.


There is no Senate filibuster blocking Cap & Tax, the Dems are about a dozen votes short and have no GOP support. The Dems are short the votes because voters oppose the effective $2-3 trillion energy tax. Democracy at work.

The House Dems ignored their constituents in enacting Cap & Tax and will answer to those constituents in November. Again, democracy at work.

Calling the opposing party the Party of No only works if the voters want to say yes to the policies of the majority party. Given that nearly all of the Dem policies currently poll just above genital herpes, being the Party of No pretty much reflects the public mood.

I know this may not have occurred to you, but a majority of American adults are part of the investor class who would benefit from eliminating the capital gains taxes and, if folks can invest their SS taxes, then every income group can become part of the investors class. Of course, if everyone is a capitalist and has a stake in the success of business, there is very little incentive to elect politicians promising to take from or punish business to give money to their constituents.

That being said, I do not see how Ryan can allow us to keep our money without collapsing the intergenerational ponzi scheme known as SS. All of our SS taxes and then some are already pledged to pay the retiring Boomers.

Baghdad, what's the difference between a Ponzi scheme and buying stock that doesn't pay a dividend?

Our friend from cloud-cuckoo land seems to support winding up social security.

So perhaps the GOP is not simply the “Party of No” but rather the party of “No, we don’t want you to know what we are going to do to your Social Security”.

Poor dear Bart also seems keen on the abolition of taxation of unearned income. Didn’t one of the ”Billionaires for Bush” point out that under Clinton, he had to struggle to live on the income from his capital, but that thanks to George W, he was able to live on the interest on the income?

But I do wonder how such a policy would play with the majority of the electorate who do have to work to eat.

I had hoped that poor dear Bart would give his assessment of the arrival of Tom Tancredo as the ACP candidate for governor in Colorado: Colorado Independent Report - but perhaps that is a development which is not so welcome, even in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Our yodeler after telling us this:

" ... the GOP is going to release its platform in September culled from a website they have been running soliciting ideas from their constituents."

now recycles the Bush/Cheney plan to privatize Social Security that fell flat on its face. Imagine if the plan came into being, just in time for the Bush/Cheney financial crash of 2008. So perhaps this fall's GOP platform will be a replay of the Bush/Cheney years, with stale ideas solicited from the usual suspects.

The Colorado hills may be alive with the ranting sounds of our yodeler, perhaps heeded only by Tom-Tom Tandredo.

I note again, our yodeler makes no reference to the Tea Party.

"If everyone ... has a stake in the success of business, there is very little incentive to elect politicians promising to take from or punish business to give money to their constituents."

-- this is nothing more nor less than an attempt to justify socialism on utilitarian grounds!

Sorry, Comrade Bart, but socialism is a failed governing philosophy. As everyone now knows, the greed of individuals will, in the end, cause a concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few, resulting inevitably in oligarchy.

Saint Ronald is spinning in his grave. The embalmed and preserved corpse of Lenin, on the other hand, is grinning from ear to ear.

Seriously, no sane "libertarian" could possibly utter such a ridiculous statement -- at least not sober.

The very existence of the Senate is an anti-democratic ruse, and was explicitly designed as such.

Anti-democratic, yes, but I'm not sure where the "ruse" comes in.

The nomination decision is being pushed off into the Senate's summer recess.

Another recess appointment to avoid public scrutiny?

C2H50H said...

-- this is nothing more nor less than an attempt to justify socialism on utilitarian grounds!

Legalized theft can be justified on utilitarian grounds?

Sounds like a progressive freudian slip.


No one is buying that a vote for the GOP = a vote for Bush.

Does anyone on the left have enough confidence in progressivism to run a full throated campaign celebrating the successes of the stimulus and Obamacare and to argue that a vote for the Dems will bring the further progress of the public option and Cap & Trade?

After all, Mourad assures us that American will be rioting in the streets if we do not adopt EU style redistribution of income.

Celebrate the change, don't run from it!

C2H50H suggests that poor dear Bart may have succumbed to socialism. With respect, I think that our resident representative from cloud-cuckoo-land is hardly a proponent of that particular “-ism”

It seems to me that dear Bart would have his country organised in accordance with the values of American business and he would doubtless like to see American capital and labour work together and achieve harmonious labour relations and high productivity in the service of the American national interest. I think he considers that America needs decisive leadership willing to operate what he has described as a “muscular” foreign policy which includes the willingness to wage war to keep America strong. I perceive him as unhappy with a multi-cultural society – he appears to wish ethnic groups to assimilate and embrace American cultural values. He is strongly supportive of the police, the national guard the armed forces and the intelligence services and relies on them to protect the American way of life.

C2H50H may care to review his list of “-isms” to see which is the best fit. The one I have in mind begins with the letter “F” and was once embraced by Italy.

This comment has been removed by the author.

Another example is the DISCLOSE ACT, which actually had a Republican co-sponsor in the House, but even Mr. Campaign Finance himself, Sen. McCain, joined a filibuster ... 57-41 (Lieberman absent).

If senators are going to make the filibuster a party-line vote deal, it's harder to defend the thing. It surely isn't really some sort of "federalism" tool as such in that context.


"values of American business" aside from greed is an empty set.

I think you may be confusing "socialism" with "democratic socialism". If everyone has a stake in businesses, as Bart said, then we're a socialist society -- just not a democratic society (think one dollar, one vote, rather than one man, one vote).

Given the cost of getting elected to the Senate, it really shouldn't be a surprise that the Senate is unresponsive to the populace but rather to their big donors.

Bart is merely voicing, both consciously and unconsciously, the increasingly open belief of the GOP that this is the way democracy should work.

This comment has been removed by the author.

This comment has been removed by the author.

C2H50H said...

Mourad: "values of American business" aside from greed is an empty set.

I think you may be confusing "socialism" with "democratic socialism". If everyone has a stake in businesses, as Bart said, then we're a socialist society -- just not a democratic society (think one dollar, one vote, rather than one man, one vote).

Individuals do not own equity in a business under either classical or democratic socialism.

Under classical socialism, the state owns the equity in a nationalized business.

Under democratic socialism, the government still owns the equity, but the workers theoretically manage the business.

In both cases, a collective and not any individual will own the business.

[As an aside, in my book, I suggest that socialism has evolved to a stage whether the government directs the economy through it police and tax powers rather the ownership by seizing the property rights of the nominal owners to operate the business. However, that is not what you are arguing.]

In complete contrast, under capitalism, I and every other investor personally owns shares/equity in a business or businesses. My suggestion that everyone should join the investor class is an expansion of capitalism and not socialism at all.

C2H50H queries whether I confuse “socialism” with “democratic socialism”. I think not, but no matter.

In real life, the exact classification of any party or policy is actually quite hard to achieve. The conventional tool is the representation of the hemisphere of a European-style legislature with the parties ranged from left to right.

In fact in the European Parliament itself, members do not sit by nationality but by political groups ranging from the openly Marxist on the left to the Eurosceptic on the right with the present majority being centre-right followed by the centre-left. However, there are a few members so far to the right that they are not sufficiently numerous to form a group: The French Front National (3 members) the British British National Party (2 members), the Hungarian Jobbik (3 members) and a few others.

If one had to carve up the US political scene European-style, one would have to split the two broad tents of Democrats and Republicans. It’s a fascinating exercise. I would place some US Democrats left of centre and some on the centre right. But there are many GOP senators and representatives I would classify as hard right and some would be far to the right of any of the recognised European Parliament groups – close to the Hungarian Jobbik and the French National Front – and that’s where I would put Bart too.

But that’s my perception based on what Bart posts here and elsewhere. He and others may disagree. As with so many other matters in life, one’s politics are not just a matter of how one sees oneself but of how others see one.

Our yodeler* says:

"[As an aside, in my book, I suggest that socialism has evolved to a stage whether the government directs the economy through it police and tax powers rather the ownership by seizing the property rights of the nominal owners to operate the business....]"

I wonder if, in his book, he also suggests his views on how capitalism has evolved or should evolve, perhaps with a truly free market that is unregulated, e.g., the ultra-libertarian free market that thinks Rand-y is dandy (but anarchism is quicker).

*I use this reference so as not to sully the dear reputation of Homer Simpson's son. Perhaps I should refer to his views as "Yodelism."

Well, it seems like it’s going to be an interesting few weeks. The polls show the electorate in what one can only describe as a “sour” mood.

It seems, however, that the Democrats are waking up – see:

Republican Tea Party Contract on America and

DNC Web Site.

Once can only hope there’s a big campaign to get that message across.

If the GOP does as well as it thinks it is going to, there is a real risk of recession in the USA and spreading from the USA into Europe.


The Dems have started what is expected to be a $50 billion negative ad campaign with the essential message - no matter how bad you think we are, the other guys are worse.

This is also known as running as fast and far from one's own record as possible.


Speaking of the GOP's legislative program, Mark has noted in a thread above that the House GOP has just introduced the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS). (Who comes up with these names?) REINS appears to be an attempt by Congress to regain some of the legislative power it ceded to the executive bureaucracy by requiring a resolution enacted by both houses of Congress and signed by the President approving any "major regulation" before it becomes law.

I imagine that this legislation is aimed at stopping EPA from running amok after Congress refused to enact Cap & Tax and to serve as a companion tool with with the power of the purse to effectively repeal Obamacare.

Far more than the immediate effects, this bill could be a potential sea change movement back to the proper separation of powers.

Yet, it is receiving no news coverage.

I would love to see a debate between the GOP Congress and Obama on this one.

Here's the latest Yodelism:

"This is also known as running as fast and far from one's own record as possible."

This is what Republicans did when they finally realized the failings of Bush/Cheney and especially after the Bush/Cheney crash of 2008. The Tea Party apparently is not filling the Republican void so the Republican future is its failed recent past.

Regarding Yodelism's negativity on negative politcal ads, that's been a GOP tradition going back at least to Nixon's Southern Strategy that continues today not so subtly following the election of an African American as President in 2008.


Bart’s problem is that he uses “socialism” as a term of abuse. This resonates with older people in the USA who lived through the cold war propaganda about the eastern bloc states.

But the democratic socialism of western Europe is very different. See: Investors Insight: I'll Take Sweden: Socialism, Free Markets, and the Nanny State

Yes, the countries of western Europe are “welfare states”. All of them provide universal health care through varying systems. We have reciprocity. I have a card in my wallet which permits me to use the healthcare provisions of any other EEA state on the same basis as a citizen of that country. Yes there are unemployment benefits, retirement benefits and the like. There is a basic safety net for all. Yes, these benefits are financed in part from taxation.

But the “welfare state” concept is not to be equated with socialism. It is a concept deriving from common humanitarianism. In the UK it was brought into being by the Liberal Party and even the post war creation of the NHS by the Labour Party was inspired by a report prepared by a Liberal.

Au contraire, Mourad, according to the "intellectuals" on the right in this country, anything which interferes with the "freedom" of the populace (defined in the Hobbesian sense of "free to work or starve") is "socialist".

Arguing with those who re-define at their will (or simply imbibe their definitions from the National Review Online) the terms of argument, and whose interest in the truth only extends as far as the facts support their ideology, is rather pointless. Best to merely make fun of them, as there can be no rational argument with those whose rationality is enslaved to their preconceptions.

Mourad said...

Bart’s problem is that he uses “socialism” as a term of abuse.

Most certainly. Socialism is basically gangster government. As such. socialism should be condemned.

But the democratic socialism of western Europe is very different...the “welfare state” concept is not to be equated with socialism.

I agree. Socialism is government direction of the economy to redistribute income. A welfare state is not a direction of the economy and may not even be redistribution so long as everyone pays and everyone benefits ala American Medicare.

Interesting segment on Rachel Maddow Wed. night (tonight at the time of this writing) about the German experience, the guest in effect promoting a new book he has coming out. Good intro quoting various Republicans on how Obama and co. wants to turn us into some scary Western European country.

Unfortunately as to health care and some other things, they are exaggerating some.

C2H50H – I appreciate your comment.

Others have questioned why on earth poor dear Bart spends quite so much time slaving over a keyboard to post on this and other liberal sites, particularly when he has his own blog: Citizen Pamphleteer where he can spew away to his heart’s content. One reason may be that his own blog is virtually unread. This blog makes it into web traffic rankings, poor dear Bart’s doesn’t.

In earlier posts, Bart has admitted that he posts here “to run interference”, to degrade the quality of the threads. In other words a variant on the well-established political technique of infiltrating the opposition to undermine its effectiveness.

I recollect that this was very much a feature of the Nixon Committee to Re-elect the President (“Creep”) and that Donald Segretti famously coined the term ”ratfucking” to describe it. Segretti, of course, later did time for election misconduct, but that did not stop the Orange County GOP making him co-chair of the 2000 McCain presidential campaign.

Perhaps dear Bart thinks he can have some role in the politics of his “city above the clouds”. In the UK and elsewhere lawyers, particularly those who cannot make much of a living at the bar and occasionally some who can, quite often turn to politics.

Bart might go down quite well in ”cloud-cuckoo-land” even without Aristophanes to write his lines for him. I note that he has rather carefully avoided two previous invitations to share his views on the Tea Party souring on Tancredo story and perhaps this is rather too close to home for him to wish to comment.

Anyway, I would prefer not to describe our own dear Bart as either a “ratfucker” or a “creep”. I think of him more as the “Wormwood” to C.S. Lewis’s “Screwtape” - a very minor and rather inept tempter. Certainly I do not think any of his posts will tempt any readers of this blog to adopt the politics of the extreme right.

Bart writes:-

”The Dems have started what is expected to be a $50 billion negative ad campaign with the essential message - no matter how bad you think we are, the other guys are worse. This is also known as running as fast and far from one's own record as possible.”

I note that Mark Ambinder in the Atlantic puts it this way: Democratic Message: We May Be Incompetent, But They're Crazy.

”Good party messages are organic, and they are not announced. Fortunately for Democrats, theirs just sort of came along, thanks to the Tea Party movement, which has invited into politics hecklers and cranks and fairly fringe candidates who are currently hurting the Republican Party in several key states. Oh, but the Tea Party is an organic movement of conservative men and women who will feel insulted if the Democrats cast them as crazy and lumps them together with Republicans, right? Nah. These people are perpetually offended by the Democratic Party.”

Even better, the Tea Party is working against established Republican figures – see this: Galvanizing your Opposition which is about Missouri Tea Party activists excoriating the fruitcake Tea Party Caucus darling GOP Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) because she is phone banking for the US Senate campaign of Roy Blunt (R-MO).

Blunt is apparently slightly ahead of his Democratic opponent – see Poll shows Roy Blunt leads Robin Carnahan in Senate race in Missouri.

So one might think this Tea Party activity would be not entirely unwelcome in Carnahan campaign HQ.

Here's the closing paragraph of Ariela Gross' interesting post at the always interesting Legal History Blog today (7/29/10) "Race, Law and Conservatism in America":

"I’ve been thinking about this a lot as I’m in the early stages of a research project on the history of race, law and conservatism in the United States from the 1960s through the 1990s, bringing together the legal history of color-blind constitutionalism with the social history of grass-roots conservative movements that organized to oppose the integration of African Americans in housing, schools, and public life in American cities. Please send me your ideas! I am curious what legal historians think about the current politics of race and its connections to a longer post-civil rights era history."

We all should know of Nixon's 1968 Southern Strategy. Perhaps Ms. Gross should consider extending her timeline to at least 2010 to reflect the conservative reaction to the election in 2008 of America's first African American President, especially as it is playing out today.

Now, now, Mourad, let's not get too "Blunt" what with the sensitivities of those who can't take the heat but remain in the kitchen. [CAUTION: Never fry eggs in the nude.]


Is Blunt whining about the Tea Party intervention, then? But he’s no longer in the top 15 of the Crews Most Corrupt List but relegated to the “Where are they now?” page.

Isn’t Blunt the guy who is said to have rented a pick-up and donned specially purchased “country” clothing in an attempt to appeal to the rural vote? More likely he bought his “country” threads to hob-nob with his friends and GOP donors among the “big oil” interests.

BTW, I’m pleased to see that Harvard Con Law Prof and former Reagan Solicitor General has an op-ed in the Boston Globe today supporting the idea of a recess appointment for Elizabeth Warren. I posted a link on the latest Warren thread – the op-ed is a good read.

PS: No English breakfasts for me so I don’t fry eggs in the nude. In fact the best that could be said of the old-style morning fry up was that the milk boiling over usually put out the burning toast.

Hello Sandy,

What if we focused on strategic election reforms of state legislatures so that they became competitive and we could trust them to elect our US senators for us again?

I hear you're really into election reform.

I'd love to get feedback and work with you on that issue which has been my passion for the past couple of years, as evidenced by writings on Strategic Election Reform, most of which is currently posted at TPM Cafe.


HD kaliteli porno izle ve boşal.
Bayan porno izleme sitesi.
Bedava ve ücretsiz porno izle size gelsin.
Liseli kızların Bedava Porno ve Türbanlı ateşli hatunların sikiş filmlerini izle.
Siyah karanlık odada porno yapan evli çift.
harika Duvar Kağıtları bunlar
tamamen ithal duvar kağıdı olanlar var

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts