The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000 words

The question is whether Rezko did a $925,000 favor for Obama by paying for part of his home? A picture is worth a thousand words, so take a look at this NBC news feature with extensive photos of the property:

1) As you can clearly see from the overhead photos in the video, this was clearly NOT an "adjacent" piece of property. This was quite obviously the yard for the Obama house. The only access to the Rezko property is from Obama's parcel. The intent here was clearly for Rezko to purchase the land and continue making it available for the exclusive use of the Obama family. A $925,000 favor to a sitting US Senator.

2) Why did Obama buy a strip of "Rezko" land and build a fence? Simple. Obama knew that eventually somebody would photograph the property and the sham nature of the arrangement would be instantly obvious. Thus, he had to do something to give the appearance of Rezko's land actually being separate from the Obama house. Thus, building a fence (with a gate providing the only access). Obviously, the Rezko property was never intended to be a separate piece of land and a fence on the original lot line would have been absurd. Pause the video and note the SUV parked on Obama's driveway immediate to the rigth of the fence (the new lot line). This indicates that, initially, Obama's driveway was actually sited on "Rezko's" piece of the property...a strong indication that Rezko intended the use of the land as a gift to Obama. To even site a plausible fence required transfering part of "Rezko's" land to Obama, even though Obama already had full use of, and was maintaining "Rezko's land.

3) Rezko has since transfered title to his land to his attorney. Is this one of the land transactions that landed Rezko in jail yesterday?

Why is this important? Obama has long suggested that voters should ignore his lack of experience and consider only his superior "judgement". The entire rationale for his qualification to be President is his "judgement". Does this sham property purchase, regardless of its legality, seem like good "judgement" to you?

Tags: corruption, land-fraud, obama, rezko (all tags)



I don't see the photos hwc.

by lonnette33 2008-01-29 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't see the photos hwc.

Don't worry. Who really cares?

It is all part of the Obama smear campaign anyway, a Whitewater episode that the Clintons' learned from in the 90s. So now we go from the race card to the sleaze card. Where to from here?

This kind of thing happens when a candidate like Hillary has moved so far away from Democratic principles that it needs to be covered up by emphasizing the opponent's faults or alleged faults, and if he has none, you make them up.

by shergald 2008-01-30 02:08AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't see the photos hwc.

I'm curious about why all of the Clinton supporters seem so worked up over this issue.

Obama is not accused of any wrong doing.  The transaction has been reviewed by many people and the prices paid were fair market value.  The current asking price of the lot is more than what Rezko paid for it.  The only way that the transaction could be seen as shady is if Rezko over paid for the lot in order to subsidize Obama.  Given that the lot is being resold for more than the price paid makes it clear that no significant shenanigans where played.

Given that so many Dems rightfully take offense to the way the Clintons were treated over Whitewater and the way Kerry was smeared by Bushco, I find it amazing that you all seem to have such enthusiasm over "swift-boating" a fellow Democrat.

Have you no shame?  Seriously, have you no shame?  How do you justify your actions?  What mental gymnastics do you have to preform to get around the cognitive dissonance in your heads?  On some level you must know that you are engaged in behavior that you would condemn from others.

I can only guess that you have all adopted a "win by any means necessary" philosophy.  When Dems act like this, they make it easier for the Repubs to slime our candidates be creating an "everybody does it" atmosphere.  This stuff discredits politics and politicians, ultimately it discredits the very idea of democracy and collective action.

This may seem like a rant, it is not intended that way.  I seriously want to no why you are acting this way?  Obama has not dredged up any of the considerable muck available to throw at the Clintons.  You can bet that the Repubs will have no such restraint.  The fact that the Clintons have run such a dirty campaign against Obama will give her no way to complain when the muck rains down.

by upper left 2008-01-30 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't see the photos hwc.

-"Obama has not dredged up any of the considerable muck available to throw at the Clintons."

No, I suppose not. He just called them racist. Oh that Obama is such a saint. What a load of bs!

by lonnette33 2008-01-30 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't see the photos hwc.

He never called them racist.  Show me otherwise.

Many neutral observers concluded that the Clintons where making a conscious effort to raise race as an issue and to try to "ghettoize" Obama as a black candidate.  There is a difference between being racist and using race for political gain.  Based on the comments in question I agree with these conclusions.  

The people who objected to HRC and BC's comments were Clyburn and Brazille, both of whom are widely respected AA figures who are neutral in the contest between BO and HRC.

Your comments strike me as typical Clintonian double speak: excuse your candidate's efforts to manipulate, and then when she is called on those  manipulations, claim she is a victim.  It is a clever ploy, but it is fundamentally intellectually dishonest.

Again, how do you justify "swift-boating" a fellow Dem?

by upper left 2008-01-30 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't see the photos hwc.

Did you read my comment?

Obama called the Clintons a racist. I didn't mention your name.

by lonnette33 2008-01-30 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Please respond to what I said

Did you read mine?

I said, "He (meaning Obama) never called them racist."

You claim otherwise.  Show me evidence.  

Respond to the actual point of my diary:  the Clintons are not racist, but a very strong case can be made that they raised race as an issue for political gain.  Do you deny that they did it?  Or, do you defend this sort of behavior?

by upper left 2008-01-30 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Please respond to what I said

-but a very strong case can be made that they raised race as an issue for political gain.

Of course he never said it. MLK/LBJ and fairlytale comment were turned around to make is appear the Clintons were racist. It was implied. He implied it and the media took off with it.  He also put out a memo in SC saying that the Clintons surrogates were speaking for her.  If that were the case than was JJr speaking for Obama when he said Hillary did not cry for Katrina. This is not rocket science.

Anyway, who are you trying to convince?  

by lonnette33 2008-01-30 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Please respond to what I said

1)  If HRC and BC's comments were turned, who did the turning, Clyburn and Brazile who are not part of Obama's campaign

2) Lets review our conversation:

I started with a generic comment to all HRC supporters about why you folks all seem so enthusiastic about "swift-boating" a fellow Dem, when you are rightfully angry about the treatment your own candidate has received from the Repubs.

You responded not by answering my comment, but by accusing Obama of "calling the Clintons racist."

I replied that he had never done so, and clarifying that there is a difference between being racist and using race for political gain.

Again, you responded by not addressing my response.

If we are going to have a useful exchange of ideas, it would help if you would actually try to answer my questions:

Do you feel justified in "swift-boating" a fellow Dem.  Do you feel justified in accusing Obama of "calling the Clintons racist" when he never did.  Do you disagree that the Clintons are using race for political gain?  Do you feel this is appropriate behavior for a Dem primary?

by upper left 2008-01-30 08:09AM | 0 recs
You're right.

This is useless. Let's end it here.

by lonnette33 2008-01-30 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't see the photos hwc.

Scratch my last comment. I guess I'm the one that needs to read better. Sorry.

-He never called them racist.  Show me otherwise.

How can you say that with a start face?

by lonnette33 2008-01-30 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't see the photos hwc.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Obama or his campaign ever claimed that HRC or BC where racist nor that their comments were racist.  Obama said, "some people were offended by their (HRC ans BC) comments."  

Those people were Brazile and Clyburn, who are not part of the Obama campaign.  Why is this so hard for you to follow?

If you think I am wrong, show me some evidence.

by upper left 2008-01-30 07:43AM | 0 recs
Sorry, I see the video.

by lonnette33 2008-01-29 05:57AM | 0 recs

So, if this piece of land was actually a gift to Obama (perhaps not on paper, but as far as common-use is concerned,) wouldn't that be against the law or very close to the edge of existing law?

by georgep 2008-01-29 05:58AM | 0 recs

Yes. It's quite similiar to what has Sen. Stevens of Alaska under federal investigation. In that case, known political fixers in the state used a series of "sham" transactions to pay for major upgrades to the Stevens home (adding a second story).

Why do you think Obama is trying so hard to distance himself for any work done for Rezko? Rezko clearly "scratched Obama's back". If it were to come to light that Obama "scratched Rezko's back" in return, we would have very serious suggestions of Chicago-style corruption.

by hwc 2008-01-29 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

I don't get the feeling that the Obama's are gonna be staying in this house after the campaign is over... a move is probably coming.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-01-29 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

What caught Obama was Rezko's indictment.

Obviously, his intention was to keep using the Rezko land until such time as he could afford to buy the property back from Rezko. At that point, it would have been a shady deal, but it would have been ancient history and, after all, this is Chicago politics.

Rezko's indictment forced Obama's hand.

by hwc 2008-01-29 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

I wonder when the fence went up between the properties?

by MollieBradford 2008-01-29 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

It's easy to Google for the dates, but Obama/Rezko bought the home in 2005 after Obama became a Senator. The fence (aka "window dressing") went up in 2006 when Obama started putting together his Presidential plans.

by hwc 2008-01-29 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

so the fence didn't go up until the next year.  And I am guessing that there is a gate in the fence for people to get to the other property to mow the lawn etc...

by MollieBradford 2008-01-29 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

Correct. The only access to the Rezko part of the property is a gate in the fence from the Obama part of the property.

by hwc 2008-01-29 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: oh DUH.. this explains why he made the

Right. Once you see the photos and the fact that Obama's driveway was on Rezko's land, it's clear that the charade of "adjacent properties" would never fly. Obama had to do the second transaction (buying a strip of Rezko's land) to get his driveway back on his land and create at least "plausible deniability" of a sweetheart deal with an indicted "fixer".

by hwc 2008-01-29 06:29AM | 0 recs
SO TRUE!!!!!!!!!

Can anyone isolate that photo of the fence and driveway from the video?

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-29 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: SO TRUE!!!!!!!!!

Seymour, I sent you that email this morning.

by Artificial Intelligence 2008-01-29 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: SO TRUE!!!!!!!!!

oh great!

im so glad you did.,right?!

Ill get you in the am!

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-29 01:54PM | 0 recs
win or lose?

Do you think he will move out if he loses the nomination?

by MollieBradford 2008-01-29 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

Guys the clinton campaign is touting a major endorsement coming out today and its not the guy down there in Florida.

Who could it be ?

Bill Richardson , Joe Biden , Chris Dodd  ?

I always like this type of tease lol

By the way Rasmussen shows her up 2

Clinton 41 , Obama 32

So the impact of the sc win and tk endorsements haven't registered yet.

by lori 2008-01-29 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

" Campaign listing of Pacific Time on notification to press a West Coast hint? "

- Could be Boxer or Richardson.

by lori 2008-01-29 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

Maxine Waters!  That will help Clinton in CA.

by MollieBradford 2008-01-29 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home for the Dishonest

It's amazing. A year of Rezko stories and all it takes is seeing the photo of the property to know instantly that this land-deal was a sham transaction.

All of Obama's denials become clear: "Who are you gonna believe? Me? Or your own lyin' eyes?"

by hwc 2008-01-29 06:21AM | 0 recs
who has been mowing the lawn?

Who has been maintaining that land that is obviously the yard to Obama's house?

Why did Obama first say he didn't talk to Rezko about the land before he purchased the house and then had to admit that Yes, he had talked to Rezko about it?

Why is there one big fence and only one gate if that was a separate lot?

by MollieBradford 2008-01-29 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home for the Dishonest

Well, to be fair, the yard probably did have some value as an investment property.  The value being the ability to sell it to the Obamas later on.

What's amusing is that Obama's defenders routinely cite the fact that he paid ABOVE market value for the "strip of land" as a point in his favor.  Uh, it's not.

by Steve M 2008-01-29 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home for the Dishonest

pause the video and look at the fence.  If he didnt have that strip, he wouldnt even have room to pull a car in...

look how the fence cuts the other "half" to to like nothing.

This is so obviously a scam.  The view from he roof shows the truth.

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-29 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home for the Dishonest

I have a funny feeling he wasn't parking on the street before he bought that strip.

by Steve M 2008-01-29 07:17AM | 0 recs
the part you are missing

is that Obama must have asked rezko to buy the lot.

Obama very likely asked for the favor OR the realtor just happened to mention rezko.

how did the sale come about?

by TarHeel 2008-01-29 06:24AM | 0 recs
He asked
Of course.  At first he claimed they had not spoken about the property and then he admitted that they had.
It is way too much coincidence to assume they just happened to buy the lot and the yard on the same day without knowing it.
by MollieBradford 2008-01-29 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: the part you are missing

Obama now asks us to believe that he talked to Rezko about the purchase, but that he was only asking him for real estate advice and that Rezko independently went to the real estate agent and purchased the "adjoining land" (with Obama's driveway) without Obama's knowledge or request.

Basically we can conclude two things (at a minimum):

a) Obama shades the truth (to put it charitably).

b) Obama thinks we are stupid.

by hwc 2008-01-29 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: the part you are missing

I think I read in the Trib that friends of Rezko were doing remodeling work on the mansion and knew it was coming to market. Rezko then pitched it to the Obamas. They obviously had to coordinate the purchases intimately to get the parcel subdvided and both purchases closed on the same day. Do you know how freaking tough it is to schedule a closing? Two simultaneous closings don't happen by accident.

by ineedalife 2008-01-29 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

not that you care for the facts, but the easement existed before the property was sold to obama.  it is also QUITE COMMON in chicago and other major cities.  while the property was divided by the seller for sale, property tax records have always considered these three separate parcels (only one of which is owned by obama).  (i know, i know, facts are such a bother.)

the adjacent property is no longer owned by the rezko's, something that you'd know if you bothered to watch the video.  is hillary really worth it since electing her apparently requires that everyone lie for her?  isn't that a republican tactic???

by bored now 2008-01-29 06:31AM | 0 recs
The Obama/Rezko Home

Yeah, we've heard all the legal mumbo jumbo that Obama's people have thrown out there. Just look at the property. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck...

Yeah. Rezko transfered the land to his attorney. More obfuscation. Rezko is sitting in jail today because his bond was revoked. Why? Because the judge stated that Rezko had transfered properties and was then clandestinely reimbursing the new owners and/or the new owners were trying to sell the properties. Ya think Rezko's part of Obama's property was one of the parcels the judge was referencing yesterday?

by hwc 2008-01-29 06:38AM | 0 recs
is this snark

look at the property, it is all one lot.  Sure they split it up legally before they sold it in two parts, they would have to.  but there is one fence surrounding the whole property with one way in to it.  The grounds were obviously being maintained by the Obama's and I will bet if you look in the Obama family album you will find pictures of parties and kids playing in the "adjoining lot".

by MollieBradford 2008-01-29 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: is this snark

Hell, they probably even put down yardage markers on the grass for the obligatory "Kennedyesque" photos of family football on Rezko's land!

by hwc 2008-01-29 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: is this snark

And the lots in that neighborhood are quite large, as this was the neighborhood in which the barons of the fin de siècle built  their mansions.

by truthteller2007 2008-01-29 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

Really, when you make disingenuous arguments like "the adjacent property is no longer owned by the rezko's," conveniently failing to point out that it's now owned by Rezko's lawyer, all you're doing is highlighting that no one should trust anything you say.  One would think you'd have figured that out by now.

by Steve M 2008-01-29 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

try to explain away the owners demand that the two properties -if sold separately - must close on exactly the same day.

if they really were separate properties, explain that odd condition.

if you had two condos for sale, would you demand that they could only be sold if both were purchased on the same day?

thats totally ridiculous

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-29 06:59AM | 0 recs
No, it was bad judgment...

and Obama has repeatedly admitted that and said it was a mistake.  What more do you want him to do?

Obama appears to not even have enough money to just buy the remainder of that lot at the full list price (about $600,000).  Some candidates do not have the luxury of total financial security because they have totally dedicated themselves to public service.

However, Obama has learned from this mistake and something good has came out of it.  I think that part of Obama's emphasis on the pernicious role of money in politics is tied to his own personal example of the temptation of taking money and not asking enough questions about where it is coming from and what taking it looks like and means.    

The real moral of this story is not that Obama is somehow corrupt but that he has the personal insight and character to realize when he makes a mistake, admits it and learns from it.    

by mboehm 2008-01-29 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: No, it was bad judgment...

How do we know whether there was more to this than you let on?  Every politician would say that the exercised "bad judgement."   We don't just buy it from anyone else, so why should we just accept it from Obama?   This was an obvious favor that was done for Obama, so at the least it should be looked at whether Rezko or any of his associates got favors back in return (in form of favorable treatment) to be sure that no funny business was going on (exchange of favors.)  

by georgep 2008-01-29 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: No, it was bad judgment...

Especially considering the tiny eensy-weensy little inconvenient truth that Rezko (Obama's "political godfather") is currently under indictment for federal political corruption charges.

by hwc 2008-01-29 06:43AM | 0 recs
I don't especially like using the...

everyone does it excuse (does not make it right) but there was a time when the Clintons didn't have that much money.  In the late 1970's, Hillary turned a $1,000 investment into a $100,000 profit by trading in cattle futures on the advice of a lawyer working for some of Arkansas' leading regulated companies.  I know that Hillary is really smart but I kind of doubt her knowledge extends into cattle futures.

That story had no legs because there was no evidence whatsoever of any illegalities.  However, it sure smells like a sweetheart deal.  I suspect something similar is going on here.  The Sun Times and Tribune have been on this story like a dog with a bone for over a year and there just is no evidence whatsoever that anything illegal was going on.  

The timing is important here because Obama was only able to even buy the house and lot strip from money obtained from the advance for The Audacity of Hope in 2005.  He was in the Senate by then.  By early 2006, Obama was already seriously thinking about running for President (probably not in 2008 but someday).  I have no doubt that Rezko thought he was buying future favors but what could Obama really do for him from the US Senate (write a couple of letters?, make a few phone calls?) without it creating a big stink.    

by mboehm 2008-01-29 07:38AM | 0 recs
what are you smoking?

The Clintons were investigated for years by Starr and NOTHING turned up but a blow job. If there was evidence of a sweetheart deal it would have been all over the place, legal or not.  All you have is "I don't think Clinton's expertise extends to Cattle Futures".  That's nothing compared to the Rezko evidence.

Face it, the guy is not who you think.

by MollieBradford 2008-01-29 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't especially like using the...

What favors?

Well, I'm a little curious about whether Sen. Obama among those Rezko asked to contact the State Dept. about a visa for the convicted Iraqi financier who just transfered $3 million to Rezko.

Also, we know that Rezko had several meetings with Obama asking for Obama to help arrange a $50 million contract for Rezko to train Iraqi security guards. Obama's office has said that they did not contact Iraqi officials on Rezko's behalf, but they have not commented on whether they contacted any US officials (such as State Department officials Obama might have met on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).

At the very least, I think Obama should start being asked some questions.

by hwc 2008-01-29 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't especially like using the...

No legs?

Are you kidding me? Ken Starr spent $70 million investigating Clinton.

Ask poor Susan McDougle whether it had legs. The woman rotted in jail because she refused to cooperate with the Starr witchhunt.

by hwc 2008-01-29 07:54AM | 0 recs

because they have totally dedicated themselves to public service."

and directly after he goes to the us senate, his wife salary at a 'non profit' hospital jumped from 100 thousand and change to 300 thousand and change [kachng!] she then goes on the board of a wal mart provider where she received 65 thousand a year plus more for each board meeting {kaching!] plus ANOTHER 75,000 a year in stock options [kaching!]...and of course they show such thrift needed by poor dedicated public servants when they let Rezko save them the 950 grand on this house too...ka ching-ching!

the Obamas all about such noble sacrifice!

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-29 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: jeeeeeeze

Obama certainly hasn't made out like, say, Dick Cheney, but I'd personally like to compare his financial situation to Joe Biden's before I'd start going on about his noble commitment to public service.  It doesn't look like he's hurting too bad.

by Steve M 2008-01-29 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: jeeeeeeze

Joe's the man!

Hes got a great house too but it was a true dump when he bought it, but like a real man, he and his brothers  fixed it up over time. over years actually.

and his wife jill doesnt take frigging legal bribes like michelle did from the univ of chicago hospitals or six figure kiss kiss money from gd pickle companies!

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-29 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: jeeeeeeze

Good to see you work in a smear on Michelle.  There's definitely no way that a incredibly well credentialed woman like her earned her salary!

by HSTruman 2008-01-29 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: jeeeeeeze

oh yeah her going from 100 grand a year to 300 grand a year at a non profit - AFTER  her husband becomes  senator is allll about a stellar job performance review!


by Seymour Glass 2008-01-29 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: jeeeeeeze

Don't forget, he signed his book deals before he took his oath, so he could circumvent Senate ethics rules...I think HIllary did the same thing...they are two peas in a pod....

by Gloria 2008-01-29 01:50PM | 0 recs
Bill Baxley

Former Governor of Alabama, is doing hard time for a similar mistake of judgment.

by Trickster 2008-01-29 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: No, it was bad judgment...

omg, mboehm.  I think I really like you as a person but fear you may have crossed the line from optimistic (and pluckishly naive) to gullible.  And just so you know, those guys that tell you their hard luck stories about losing their bus money and just needing enough to get back home to take care of a sick family member?  They're not telling the truth either ...

by othermother 2008-01-29 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: No, it was bad judgment...

In this context it may be important to realize that mboehm is working for the Obama campaign (is getting paid,) as per his own admission, so while he may believe in what he writes here it probably is logical that even if he did not he would not be able to state so on a public blog.  This is not a slam on mboehm in any way, just a note that his employment makes it virtually impossible to cast a critical eye on his employer.  

by georgep 2008-01-29 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

The colors of the bricks column at the corner of Rezko's lot matches those of Obama's home.  Even the color of the column's cement capitol corresponds with the color of the home's trimmings.

by truthteller2007 2008-01-29 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

of course it does.  It is one property.

by MollieBradford 2008-01-29 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama

The picture really does undercut everything that Obama has said.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-29 07:27AM | 0 recs
Obama is an idiot for this

I support him but this is terrible judgment. He should be proactive and give up whatever "subsidy" that he gained because of Rezko paying full price. I know he's not worth thens of millions like some of his colleagues, but this will follow him for a long time.

I GUARANTEE you that if someone had the time/money, if you had someone search through the public mortgage/property records for transactions involving politicians, you would find more instances of corruption every year than the US has prosecuted in the last 25. It's that easy.

by highgrade 2008-01-29 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

Gee.  Another recommended Rezko thread on MYDD.  Will wonders never cease?

Why won't the MSM cover the story more?  Why? Why?  Why?!

by Drummond 2008-01-29 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

You're a funny guy.  Of course, this diary is about a video from last night's national news, but feel free to pretend the MSM has no interest in this story.

by Steve M 2008-01-29 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: They're covering it now.. and I suggest

They covered it because there was an arrest.  Then they trotted out the land deal thing, interviewed the Tribune editor who emphasized that there's no evidence of wrongdoing, only bad judgment.

It's only on the blogs that anybody is speculating as to whether Obama tried to help Resko escape to France, or launder money, or whatever.

It'll come up again when the trial happens.  The same old facts will be aired.  And that'll be it.

by Drummond 2008-01-29 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: The "same old facts" minus the spin

I read the poster's spin on that.  But unless there's a deed with no consideration, it's hot air.

by Drummond 2008-01-29 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

I wonder when the previous owner decided to subdivide the properties and at whose suggestion. I wonder if that owner has been under oath in front of a grand jury. It would seem that those questions would be very relevant to Fitzgerald's investigation.

by ineedalife 2008-01-29 08:52AM | 0 recs
You should call him!

No - really!

You should TOTALLY call him!

I bet he had clue what it might mean!  

TOTALLY call him!

by zonk 2008-01-29 09:35AM | 0 recs
To anyone who knows anything about real-estate development, the vacant lot next to the Obama's residential home looks like a vacant lot.
If Obama wanted it as his back yard, then why would he put a fence between himself and it?
It is common for  property owners of vacant lots to put up a fence around their vacant lots to discourage kids, animals, and squatters from moving into it, and it makes sense to have the gate to the lot be only accessible from Obama's property. Are you really going to hassle Obama and Rezko for being neighborly with each other?
I agree the fact that the Rezkos hasn't as of yet developed the lot is irksome, but the Rezkos still own the five sixths they didn't sell to the Obamas, and need I remind you that the Rezkos are real-estate developers. Multi-million dollars land projects can take a while before they get built, and it is not unreasonable to believe that the Rezkos legal troubles would delay a real-estate development project.
by fetboy 2008-01-29 08:57AM | 0 recs
reasons to bring back poll testing

" is common for  property owners of vacant lots to put up a fence around their vacant lots to discourage....

animals, and squatters from moving into it"

"Are you really going to hassle Obama and Rezko for being neighborly with each other?"

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-29 09:10AM | 0 recs
"Real estate development"

Who would want to buy an expensive lot that can only be entered through an easement over somebody else's property?

That's what really stinks, is that the nearly worthless dog-tail lot went for full value while the primary property, which has almost all the value of the two properties combined, got all of the seller's discount.

by Trickster 2008-01-29 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Hardly

First of all, from all the articles and reports I've read so far, it sounded as if the two properties, although adjacent, were distinct. But after seeing the video, it does seem as if the two "adjacent" properties for sale in the beginning were actually one property, encompassing the house and the large yard. In other words, it seems the two "adjacent" properties were "created" after the facts so that Obama could by the house cheaper, while Rezko helped him by purchasing part of the property (the yard) at full price. Now, one thing I've seen reported, but no one mentioned here (or maybe I missed it in one of the posts above) is that Obama purchased the strip from Rezko and paid for the fence design and legal paperwork with the city, while Rezko actually "paid" for the fence building. That seems a bit odd to me. I saw another article talking about an easement on the property relating to a carriage house in the back which has right of access through the Obama property.

by LovingIT 2008-01-29 09:24AM | 0 recs
Whether you want to

Accept it or not, the vacant lot next Obama's home is a vacant lot. And it is ready to be developed, which I suppose will happen after Rezko's legal matters have been settled.

by fetboy 2008-01-29 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow, very good!!

Nice hit piece.....good ol' college try.

You people actually believe that this kind of crap is going to get play?  Come on, Obama has answered all the calls for explanations, and just because you choose to ignore it, doesn't mean everyone else will...

This is an obvious sign of "nothing else to talk about" in a desperate attempt to slow Obama's momentum.

Come on folks, at least take Krugman's advice and talk about the issues.

Why won't Hillary commit to a full repeal of the DOMA law, as Obama has?

by Doug in Virginia 2008-01-29 09:13AM | 0 recs

that's why it has to be hear. Mr. Obama is the darling of the media, just think how it would be played if it were about Hillary.  They're giving us the run up to Obama, in the same powerful way they sold the war. Not sure it'll work with real voters, but it might, we are the nation of sleeping sheep.  

by anna shane 2008-01-29 01:06PM | 0 recs

I'm trying to understand why you are hyping this story...

A house was for sale.  

This was obviously a house built on a 2 lot property that was lived in and used as 1 residence.

$1,650,000 for the house on one lot.
$625,000 for the yard, the second lot.
All of that money when to the previous owner.  All legal documents were signed and purchased through a realtor.

Rezko sold a strip of the land to Obama for a fence - unknown price
That money went to Rezko.

The lot was then sold to Sweenen (sp?)  - unknown price

Sweeny is now selling it for $995,000

The only possible favors Rezko could have done for Obama are: The difference between the asking price and the $1.65 million dollar purchase price for the house.  And, the difference between how much Obama paid for the strip of land below the market value.

Assuming Rezko is interested in turning a profit, he sold that piece of land to Sweenen for more than $625,000.  Assuming that Sweenen is interested in turning a profit he bought the land for under $995,000.00.  Also, assuming the realtor is not crazy, the true market value for the land is around $995,000.  

So what we have here is Rezko realized that buying that side lot was a no-brain opportunity to turn over a property for a profit, even at paying full asking price.  Obama couldn't afford the whole 2.6mil, so he cut a deal to get the house he wanted.

Oh, btw, when the news is covering the fact that the property has a fence around it, it's a sign that they didn't have a lot of story to work with.  Installing a gate in the fence is a few thousand dollars.

So I ask you;  Where are you getting a $925,000 favor for Obama from?  It is not from this clip.

by Thaddeusphoenix 2008-01-29 09:19AM | 0 recs
Thanks for the update.
I knew this story would end with no tragedy. The story had the appearance of something unethical happening, but only because Rezko is/was an unethical man. There was nothing unethical about the deal, it was a straight forward purchase, with no strings attached or anything left open to misinterpretation. The Obamas got a house, and the Rezkos got a lot. Enough said, end of story.
Also no one has provided evidence that the Obamas couldn't have afforded the vacant lot. The truth is they, the Obamas, didn't want the lot, but they, the Rezkos, were real-estate developers and did want it.
by fetboy 2008-01-29 09:48AM | 0 recs
a little more detail

Obama paid Rezko a full 1/6 ($104,166) of the purchase price that Rezko had paid for the entire lot ($625,000).  You can argue that the 1/6 of the lot that Obama got is the least important part of that corner lot because it is in the rear and has minimal street frontage.  Therefore, the market value of that strip is probably less than $104,166 although the access easement that Rezko gave to Obama probably has some value.  All in all, Obama probably paid near market value for that lot strip.  

However, this is only true if the 5/6 remainder is still fully developable.  That would depend on Chicago zoning laws for setback requirements and density limits (although in Chicago, a few dollars would take care of that problem :).  

Obama paid $1,650,000 for the house that had a list price of $2,000,000.  An 82.5% purchase price to list price ratio is on the low side but not outrageous.  Because the seller insisted on selling the house and lot together, the "favor" that Rezko did for Obama was not really financial but in allowing the entire transaction to even take place by agreeing to buy the entire lot at the full list price (and from what I understand was its market value based on an appraisal) that Obama could not afford.  Rezko also assumed the risk of a possible diminution in value for a 5/6 sized lot.  

by mboehm 2008-01-29 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: a little more detail

Ohh, you can be tricksy with numbers.

You are right that Rezko made no profit from the strip he sold Obama, so you could argue that the value of the  taxes Rezko had paid over the years he owned it were a GIFT to Obama. But we all know that since then the real estate market has been diving. But Rezko sold the other 5/6 of the lot (to his lawyer) for >900K, a 50% profit. Even assuming no decrease in market value we can deduce that Rezko sold that strip to Obama at 50% below market value. Another GIFT of 100K. But since the market has been decreasing the actual value of the GIFT was much more.

by ineedalife 2008-01-29 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: a little more detail

Again, more BS wish thinking.  The real estate market is tanking in some markets and still booming in others.  Did you look at the video.  That is a plush neighborhood.  Do you want to build a house next to a sitting senator?  Geee... maybe that has value.  Have you been watching any of the housing shows on TV?  The market is going up in some place and down in others.  Bad neighborhoods are getting worse... nice neighborhoods are booming.

Keep digging for something, anything to see a scandal.  I guess it keeps you busy.

To be fair there might be a way to cut this so that Obama gained $1 out of the deal.  Would that make him unclean in your eye's?  How about $2?  How about $200?  As far as I can see from this video.  Obama went into a business deal with a shady person and came out ahead.  If he lost his shirt on it, no one would care...

by Thaddeusphoenix 2008-01-29 11:40AM | 0 recs
you do need a life and an appraisal license

Taxes on what and for what period?  Rezko bought the lot in June, 2005 and sold 1/6 of it to Obama in January, 2006 at 1/6 of the market value of the entire lot, per an appraisal that Obama had retained in late 2005.  Where's the gift?

Market value is the value at a specific date.  Even if values have declined since early 2006, that has nothing to do with what the value was in mid 2005 or early 2006.  

You may know more than I know, but I am not aware of the nature of the transaction between Rezko and his lawyer and when it occurred (and whatever that was, it has nothing to do with Obama).  

Obama had a late 2005 legit appraisal that the value of that lot was $625,000.  That's it.    

by mboehm 2008-01-29 11:56AM | 0 recs
Give me a break, Clintonistas!

Yeah, because if Obama alerted Rezko to the existence of a prime lot available for purchase that could be re-sold for more, and especially when Obama couldn't afford to buy the lot AND the house, that would be criminal, right?

Please people.  Sharing good investment advice with an associate--political or otherwise--is hardly a scandal!  The land is FOR SALE!!  It's obvious there is not intention of giving the land to Obama or even making it available to him for use!

What the hell are you idiots trying to say?  There isn't even an appearance of impropriety here, and the real estate transactions appear to have been VERY straight-up, market sales.

You people can't assume that there is something with these transactions because the guy who bought the lot is under indictment.  Or that Obama has or had anything to do with the matters that led to the indictment.

Talk about wishful thinking!

by Doug in Virginia 2008-01-29 09:25AM | 0 recs
Got the facts wrong, hwc

The FACTS of your post, hwc, are INCORRECT!!

THe $925,000 sale was for the house that Senator Obama occupies, which WAS IN FACT a separate lot.  Because the previous owner owned both lots and configured the landscaping to appear as one is bogus and irrelevant to either one of the transactions that happened!

The sale price of the valuable corner lot was $625,000.

Your credibility is NADA!

by Doug in Virginia 2008-01-29 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Got the facts wrong, hwc

My bad, I got it wrong too.  The Obama's paid $1.6 M for the house, bouying their point that they couldn't afford the corner lot.  The corner lot was purchased for much less and is now for sale again, for more.  Basically, this remains much ado over NOTHING.

by Doug in Virginia 2008-01-29 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Got the facts wrong, hwc

your making yourself look foolish.

if you can prove that at any time two different owners owned this property, youd have a point,but since its always been one property, you cant.

its one property and you folks are lying ...

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-29 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Got the facts wrong, hwc

It said in the video that it was 2 lots being sold as one property.

The video also states that there were 2 different owners of each lot.  Obama owned one with a house on it.  Rezko owned the other.

What the hell are you talking about?

by Thaddeusphoenix 2008-01-29 11:08AM | 0 recs
I see that the Obama campaign staff

has shown up to spin for him.

by MollieBradford 2008-01-29 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: I see that the Obama campaign staff

Ummm. No campaign member here.  Just a Virginia citizen and proud American GLBT supporter of Barack Obama for President.

I just don't like liars.  Sorry.  I like Hillary enough and will gladly vote for her in November over any Republican, but call me idealistic, I can't stand the slash and burn style that Clinton and her supporters have taken in this campaign.  No matter what you want to do to spin it, the Obama campaign and most of his supporters have NOT slashed and burned Hillary--not even close.  And believe me, there's plenty of opportunity.

Calling her out on her own inconsistencies, misrepresentations, and particularly her hypocritical statements on MI and FL is fair game.

Making up lies about a candidate is not.

The whole Rezko "scandal" that  Clintonites are trying to whip up is a complete lie.  It was a market transaction.  Nothing at all improper about it.  Perhaps not the smartest move for Barack to have made, but absolutely above-board transactions.

by Doug in Virginia 2008-01-30 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Got the facts wrong, hwc

before rezko and obama !!

its old house, m willing to wager its always been owned as one property... a house and its yard.

god, you must be faking -you cant be that dense...can you?

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-29 02:03PM | 0 recs

I give up.

Exactly what is it you want us Obama supporters to say...

Seriously... What?

Barack Obama is a dirty, vile creature who buys big houses in cooperation with an indicted crony who raised boku funds for him?

If I say it without the question mark -- is that OK?

Barack Obama is a dirty, vile creature who buys big houses in cooperation with an indicted crony who raised boku funds for him.

There.  Good enough?

by zonk 2008-01-29 09:37AM | 0 recs

Oops, I guess Obama is not a safe candidate.

...but I'll still be voting for him -- not to mention, be doing some phone banking tonight!

by zonk 2008-01-29 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

If you go back and read the original Chicago Tribune articles on this mess, another piece becomes quite clear. The original seller did NOT want to sell the properties in 2 pieces. They had it for sale as all one property. But Obama couldn't afford the asking price for the whole thing. So Rezko, through his wife, bought the lot at full price, and Obama got the rest of it at $300,000 under market. Let's get real. This was a sleazy deal, period.

by CognitiveDissonance 2008-01-29 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

Yes.  Let's 'get real'.  So Rezko went into a business deal with Obama that helped Obama save money on a house and in turn he recouped that investment by selling the property (a smaller property mind you, because he even sold a small part to Obama).  It's a business deal.  The whole point to to try and broker win-win situations.  I'm being to think a lot of people have never tried to buy or sell anyting.  If Rezko bought a room in the house, or a tree on the land I might have some sympathy for your claim.  But he BOUGHT THE LAND AND SOLD IT FOR A PROFIT.  Obama could only afford what he could afford.  Rezko came up with the rest and then turned the deal into a profit!

by Thaddeusphoenix 2008-01-29 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

Did he sell the lot to his former lawyer or turn in over instead of paying the lawyer for services? This keeps getting shadier and shadier.

by DaleA 2008-01-29 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

So with out answering your own question it's getting "shadier and shadier"... oh brother...

by Thaddeusphoenix 2008-01-29 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

It also says in the report that it was sold to Sweenen (god I wish I knew the correct spelling of his name).  So um... your wishful thinking is just that.

by Thaddeusphoenix 2008-01-29 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

The use of the yard was a GIFT from a slumlord.  The ability to purchase the house was a GIFT from the same slumlord. The fence came later to bring things to code. Obama purchased the side yard only after Rezko became too embarrassing. Once again at way below market rate, there was no profit for Rezko for that bit of purchase. Once again a GIFT to Obama. Obama admits he knew at the time Rezko was under investigation. It was a"bone-headed mistake". Ha Ha Ha. But he previously took dollars from the same slumlord when the conditions of his slums were headline news in Chicago. Looks like to Obama it is only bone-headed if you get caught. Nice set of ethics on that man.

The disingenuous "five hours of work" statement is really going to come back and bite Obama. He had a chance on national television to come clean. I think if Obama could come clean on this he would. His stonewalling and minmizing tells my gut there is a lot more to come. Democrats would be crazy to make this man their candidate this year during Rezko's trial.

by ineedalife 2008-01-29 10:36AM | 0 recs

you got it!!

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-29 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

Well, you must know facts outside of this news post.  Care to share the sources?

by Thaddeusphoenix 2008-01-29 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

thats all that matters and all it would take for the gop to defeat him.

because once they'd connect rezko to farrakan, the nation of islam and iraqi arm dealers who just happen to give him millions while awaiting trial for govt corruption - we'd all be sunk!

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-29 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow, very good!!

Lame reply.  Even Obama has admitted that it has the 'obvious appearance of impropriety'.

Still no prof of actual impropriety.

by Thaddeusphoenix 2008-01-29 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

Obama saw a house that he liked and that he could afford. The owner also owned an adjacent vacant lot next door and wanted to be rid of both of them at the same time. Obama called in a local real estate developer who is in the business of buying investment properties. The developer bought the adjacent lot. Now it's for sale, for considerably more than he paid for it. Sounds like a good investment.

Is this scandal really going to come down to whether a photo can be found of Malia and Sacha playing in the lot? Kids playground-gate?

by dmc2 2008-01-29 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

utter bs

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-29 10:38AM | 0 recs
all I can say is

I wish the media had covered this story more before January 3.

You'd think a shady deal for someone's house would be worth at least as much ink as a $400 haircut.

by desmoinesdem 2008-01-29 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: all I can say is

I wish that both stories would be taken for what they are... non-stories.

by Thaddeusphoenix 2008-01-29 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: all I can say is

The only reason they're (Media's) talking about it now, is becasue Hillary brought it up at the SC debate.

by lonnette33 2008-01-29 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: all I can say is


by lonnette33 2008-01-29 10:59AM | 0 recs

by Thaddeusphoenix 2008-01-29 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000
Why does this Rezko stuff make me like Obama just a little bit more? It make him seem a bit more human - a bit more real. A bit less of a choir boy.
by vj 2008-01-29 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

weirdest comment ever!

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-29 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000
I don't trust any politician that isn't just a little bit dirty.
by vj 2008-01-29 08:09PM | 0 recs
Stick to the FACTS please and back up you claims

And the fence timing theory is priceless.  It could've have anything to do with the fact that Rezko's world was collapsing in on him and he needed to liquidate, could it?  Or maybe they had always planned to split up the land, and were just working through that process so it could even be sold again.  Or maybe they were still discussing if Obama was going to buy the whole lot eventually.  Or maybe his lawyer was looking for his own buy and sell opportunity.  Or maybe... or maybe... Or maybe most of this post it talking out of your ass and really you don't know anything at all about this case.  And if you just took what was said in the video then you would only know that a legit business deal when down with a shady person.  You know nothing more than that.

by Thaddeusphoenix 2008-01-29 11:20AM | 0 recs
getting a little nervous are you?

we are just speculating Jr.  That is how things get figured out in blog world.

by MollieBradford 2008-01-29 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

This is all being kept quiet for the Republicans to use when he hets the nomination.

by glennmcgahee 2008-01-29 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

I doubt there's more than 3 people on this site who cares about the truth, but there's an excellent diary about all this on DKos here: 171056/015/838/445627

And by the way, the Chicago Inquirer has done extensive research and coverage on the whole Rezko land deal and campaign finance.  The result of their investigation?  They have endorsed Barack Obama for President.

by Piuma 2008-01-29 01:50PM | 0 recs
rezko got $100,000,000 in govt loans!


total cultist bull poo

number 1 was my fave.  total bs.  it says that because obama represented the front group "non profit" in the kind of rezko low income housing schemes that bilked the taxpayers of millions, not rezko directly , that showed that hillary was lying about obama working for rezko!


by Seymour Glass 2008-01-29 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: rezko got $100,000,000 in govt loans!

And, Obama facilitated this... how?

If you've got a case then you should make it. If you can draw a cause-effect connection from Rezko to Obama then do it.

Otherwise, STFU.

by Southern Patriot 2008-01-30 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

There's a reason some of us have left Kos and we don't need you over here telling us what they are saying over there.

by manny 2008-01-29 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

It really doesn't matter if Obama DID NO FAVORS FOR THE MAN.

There's no quid pro quo.

In contrast, Bill Clinton gave pardons to people who gave him campaign donations.

by mainelib 2008-01-29 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

Do you understand why your comment lacks any internal logic?

by Steve M 2008-01-29 02:21PM | 0 recs
by Delver Rootnose 2008-01-29 10:31PM | 0 recs
I'm glad we're all sticking with the issues n/t

by maddogg 2008-01-30 05:44AM | 0 recs
Go here for video

if you're having trouble with the video up there: 22901959#22901959

by fairleft 2008-01-30 06:22AM | 0 recs
Attention circular firing squard

The GOP noise machine must be quietly chuckling while taking notes on the Obama-Rezko non-scandal.

If the Clintonites will take a deep breath and recall, there are at least a half dozen non-scandal stories that have been kept alive by the wingnut media until they are known by at least half the electorate.

That's the half of the electorate who say that they wouldn't vote for Sen. Clinton.

Good luck on changing their minds after the GOP re-groups behind war hero McCain.

All the knocks on Obama have the same smell as the non-scandals foisted on the Clintons by the rightwing-- much smoke, but no fire.

For instance, where is the quid pro quo for Rezko in the real estate deal? Compare this to Hillary's futures dealing. (Forgotten that little kerfuffle?)

If electability in face of a ruthless and corrupt wingnut noise machine then Obama wins hands down.

But, keep on throwing mud, Clintonites. I'm sure that the Dems can pull defeat from the jaws of victory, once again.

by Southern Patriot 2008-01-30 06:25AM | 0 recs
Hillary was Rezko

It's funny with all the wailing and teeth gnashing over Rezko it reminds some people that Hillary was Rezko (on steroids) in Arkansa.

Whitewater  v. Rezko

The Rose firm hired Hillary after Bill Clinton became the attorney general of Arkansas, then she made partner after he became governor. What a coinkydink, huh? Along with the coinkydink that the State of Arkansas was one the Rose Law firm's biggest clients.

Ms. Clinton and her attorney have stated publicly that the billing records confirm that, as an attorney at the Rose Firm in the mid-80's, she was not significantly involved in the representation of Jim McDougal's savings and loan, Madison Guaranty. According to the Rose records, Hillary Clinton billed Madison for 60 hours of work over a 15 month period. Ms. Clinton's attorney argues that this represents a de minimus amount of work and includes billings for work performed by Rose Finn lawyers working for Hillary Clinton at the time.

by JoeCoaster 2008-01-30 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000

I'm so grateful that I've not lost the cynicism, pessimism and misanthropy that the past decade has engendered in me. We are screwed and will remain screwed. This thread is evidence of that.

I hope all you idiots are satisfied with yourselves while you watch the McCain inauguration.

by stmmi700 2008-03-07 07:28PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads