Support Real Charity

'Tis the season for giving.

But when you give, do you know your money will help someone?

Social workers say, "Don't give to beggars." Those who do give are "enablers," helping alcoholics and drug users to continue bad habits. It's better to give to charities that help the "homeless." I put "homeless" in quotes because my TV producers have quietly followed a dozen of the more convincing beggars after "work," and all had homes.

Once, I put on a fake beard and begged for an hour. At the rate money was coming in, I would have made ninety bucks in an eight-hour day — $23,000 per year, tax-free! I see why people panhandle.

Their success, however, means that people who give them money, no matter how good their intentions, are not engaging in real charity. Giving may make you feel better, but it doesn't make the world a better place.

So where should we give? Charity-rating services try to separate good charities from scams, but they get conned, too. The definition of "charitable work" is rarely clear. How should the board of a nonprofit's first-class hotel expenses during a trip to Africa be classified?

That's why I give to charities I can watch. I donate to The Doe Fund, a nonprofit helping to rehabilitate ex-convicts. I saw their "Men in Blue" working near my apartment — cheerfully and energetically. I thought, "Whoever's rehabbing these guys is doing something right!" So I give money to them — and to a couple other groups I can see.

Finally, I give more to charity because I'm not much of an entrepreneur. I don't have business-building skills. But for those who do, here's a novel idea: Don't give to charity.

Years ago, Ted Turner was praised for donating a billion dollars to the United Nations. He said he wanted to "guilt" other billionaires into giving more and told me Warren Buffet was "cheap" for giving too little.

At first, the idea makes sense. Billionaires have more than they need; merely chasing more profit seems selfish.

But giving it a second thought, I found a fallacy in Turner's argument. The U.N. is a wasteful bureaucracy, leading me to assume it squandered Turner's gift. Buffet, meanwhile, continued to direct his investors' money to growing companies. Based on Buffet's stock-picking success, his investments were probably a more productive use of capital than Turner's. Money went to people making better products, inventing better things, creating more jobs and so on. Maybe Buffet's stock picks are now funding the next Bill Gates.

Today, the real Gates spends his time giving money away. He's unusually conscientious about it. He experiments, funding what works and dropping what doesn't. His charity work saves lives. Good for him. But Gates was also unusually skilled at bringing people better software. Had he continued doing that at Microsoft, I bet the company would have been even more productive. And Gates would have done more for the world.

I tried that thought experiment on Turner, who, in turn, unclipped his microphone and walked off the set.

OK, so people who give away a billion dollars don't want to hear skepticism about their gift. But there's little doubt capitalism helps people more. Even rock star Bono from U2 has come to understand that. He used to call for more government spending on foreign aid. Now he says: "Aid is just a stopgap. Commerce, entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty."

Bingo. If Bono gets it, Turner should, too.

I applaud those who give to charity, but let's not forget that it's capitalists (honest ones, not those who feed off government) who do the most for the poor. They do more good for the world than politicians — and more even than do-gooders working for charities.

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.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Get the government out of welfare, and private charity will do plenty to help people in real need. After all, we are a generous people, even with our own money.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I just donated $20 to the Puppycide Kickstarter.

  • Pro Libertate||

    See? American generosity at work. Freely given, not compelled.

  • ||

    I give to Reason. Does that count?

  • JuliaSimpson63||

    I quit working at shoprite and now I make $35h - $80h...how? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn't be happier. Heres what I do,...
    ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★

    http://WWW.JUMP85.COM

    ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★

    COPY LINK TO YOUR BROWSER

  • steve8229||

    Google is paying 75$/hour! Just work for few hours & spend more time with friends and family. On Sunday I bought themselves a Alfa Romeo from having made $5637 this month. its the best-job Ive ever had.It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out www.Buzz95.com

  • plusafdotcom||

  • Alice Bowie||

    That's a bunch of Bullshit.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Why? I'll readily admit that I don't know if private charity + a true free market would take care of effectively everyone in need, but I see no reason to discount the idea completely.

  • trshmnstr||

    if private charity + a true free market would take care of effectively everyone in need

    This is totally irrelevant. The current system doesn't do this, so the free system doesn't need to either. Besides, if people are so selfish that they don't adequately take care of their neighbors' basic needs, then they need to be confronted by that reality, not insulated from it by government.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Ideally you would be right, but I don't think most people hold the private sector to the same standards as the government. A lot of people look at private failure as a cause for more government, and government failure as a cause for...more government. And for the foreseeable future, if there are significant numbers of people suffering some hardship, real or imaginary, you can bet there will be someone looking to assuage their own guilt by handing out other people's money.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    Looked in the mirror again did you?

  • plusafdotcom||

  • Swiss Servator, referendiffic!||

    Salvation Army and the local food bank get my money and time.

  • OneOut||

    The food bank is my favorite also. I take my truck to Sams or Costco and load it up with non perishables.

    But I am an occasional sucker for the more honest of the curbside panhandlers I see. If their sign says "will work for food" they don't even get a second look. If one's says "I need a beer bad" I take pity and slip them a five.

    I once saw a guy wearing clean jeans and shirt with a begging sign standing literally a couple of feet from a sign advertising for temporary labor at $8/hr from the business' parking lot he was in. I rolled down my window and pointed out the sign to him. He was across the freeway at the opposite corner an hour later.

  • Sunken Idaho||

    Ted Turner is a perfect example that smashes the myth of having above average intelligence to be successful.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I dunno, I think he was pretty smart back when he was building what became TBS and the rest of the broadcast empire. He's just crazy.

  • entropy||

    If you want to give your money to a homeless person who's actually homeless, you need to find one who's bugfuck crazy and smells like piss.

    If they don't absolutely reek and aren't obviously insane, they ain't really homeless.

    If the guy refuses the dollar and insists that he just wants the illuminati to stop stealing his trash bags full of used cups, then he's really homeless.

  • WTF||

    So, shreek is really homeless.

  • gimmeasammich||

    That would explain why he goes missing from time to time. He has to travel from library to library to find a computer that someone isn't using to look up porn.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    sounds like an LP convention.

  • Tonio||

    Uh, citation needed. Big time.

    This is a perfect example of the denialism often on display here; a mindset which does the cause no good either in achieving our goals, or in convincing others that we have a realistic worldview.

    When I volunteered for my church's shelter program there were a number of employed homeless. Parking attendants, fast food and convenience store workers, and people who hung out at the temp agency waiting for day jobs. They were functional enough to hold down jobs, but not functional enough to deal with the complexites of rent, utilites, etc.

    Also, late beloved commenter JsubD was homeless. His posts here (made from his public library) were always sane and on-target.

  • trshmnstr||

    There was a guy who drifted into our singles group in church a few years back who was homeless and working on getting his life turned around. He was perfectly sane, not the brightest bulb in the box, but a little self-discipline away from being able to hold down a job and pay rent consistently. Unfortunately his past and the WoD caught up with him. He had an attack of conscience and turned himself in for some outstanding drug warrants.

  • entropy||

    I'm not sure I even believe you. Real homeless people were working as fast food store workers? And they had nowhere to sleep but in the street? And the owner didn't mind that his fast food service personal hadn't bathed in months?

    Or are you just talking about poor people who are receiving assistance, perhaps staying in a shelter? Technically they may not own a home but neither do apartment renters. I am talking about the street sleeping hobos.

    If you're working with a program to help the homeless, maybe that's why you see sane homeless people. Because the sane ones get help. The ones who live in a shopping cart and sleep outside don't go to the shelter because they are completely nuts.

  • Tonio||

    I'm not sure I even believe you.

    Whatever.

    For anyone else who is interested in this topic:

    Real homeless people were working as fast food store workers? And they had nowhere to sleep but in the street? And the owner didn't mind that his fast food service personal hadn't bathed in months?

    Poster "entropy" seems to have some sort of special, narrow definition of homelessness which only includes "street sleeping hobos." The normative definition of homeless is those who don't have long-term housing - ie, can't afford or deal with a lease.

    The homeless with which I am familiar were part of a shelter program hosted by local churches. "Shelter" is the key word here. The churches provided minimum shelter - army cots, heated space, dinner and access to a washroom. Not all churches had shower facilities but they did a bang-up job washing themselves up in the sinks. Drying space for washcloths was an issue. Actual showers were available at a local charity serving the homeless.

    Will one of the other old-time regulars please vouch for the JsubD story?

  • DEG||

    I started posting a little after J sub D died. I lurked for a long time beforehand, possibly since Hit and Run started but it's been so long I can't remember.

    I have the J sub D thread bookmarked:

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/05.....p#comments

    He lived in a shelter according to what Jesse Walker found out. J sub D's posts were always sane. I got the impression reading through the linked stories that this is the way J sub D wanted to live his life.

  • ||

    Interesting. Thanks DEG.

  • Tonio||

    Thanks, DEG.

  • entropy||

    Dude, I used the word, I get to define what I meant by it.

    The context of the article is pan handlers. Beggars. Dirty looking guys on the sidewalk with tin cups. The legit ones are mostly all crazy, the rest are grifters.

    That is the 'homeless' I'm talking about. If you want to complain about my word choice that's your beef but it doesn't change what I meant. You can try to understand what I actually meant and respond to it, or you can just score internet points arguing semantic foul. I don't care. But what I'm talking about is what I'm talking about, and I'm talking about the panhandlers and the vagabonds.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Rover, wanderer
    Nomad, vagabond
    Call them what you will
    It doesn't change entropy's point

  • Tonio||

    Uh, why yes LP, it does. And while the words you listed may be thesaurus synonyms for "homeless" they all mean slightly different things.

    That other poster was using the word "homeless" to mean only a very narrow section of the homeless population. Which he can do, just as he can define "five" as astersisks this many ***, but it's unrealistic of him to expect everyone else to defer to his definition when it contradicts the common meaning of the word.

    He also said he "wasn't sure" if he believed me, which is also his right. But in my culture calling someone a liar (what he said counts) means I no longer have to respond to him.

  • LynchPin1477||

    The first three lines are from Wherever I May Roam by Metallica. I wasn't trying to make a serious point.

  • ||

  • DJF||

    Then there are the "private" charities which get most of their money from the taxpayers.

    For example the various refugee organizations in the USA are mostly tax funded. There is little private charity involved and people in charge of them make a very nice income, some make more then the President of the USA.

  • DJF||

    For example Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services Inc in 2012 had a total income of $41,757,818 of which the US taxpayer supplied $40,417,752

    http://lirs.org/wp-content/upl....._FINAL.pdf

  • Tonio||

    And presumably they'd continue to exist, albeit on a much tighter budget, if those government grants went away.

  • DJF||

    Sure they would exist if they were real charities and had people giving them money out of charity, not thinly disguised government agencies with little of the accountability that real government agencies should get.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    I'm interested in hearing more of what you have to say. Is there a newsletter I could subscribe to?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Just hang out here, my friend. My pontifications are legendary.

  • JWatts||

    Yes, but we need a newsletter. Preferably irregularly typed on a poorly aligned manual typewriter and mimeographed with blue ink, then mailed in a stained envelope with 46 one cent stamps.

  • Will4Freedom||

    I'm about 10 months behind in watching my DVR Stossel shows. I just saw this episode a couple of days ago. He interviewed a fellow that has a website where people an loan money to someone in a third world country to help them start a small business.

    It has a high percentage of actual paybacks, which you can "let it ride" and even add to it. It sounds like a hand up rather than hand out sort of thing.

    I think that is an excellent idea and plan to do that... as soon as I find the website.

  • Will4Freedom||

    ... where people CAN loan ...

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Kiva...buy a cow sort of thing. Also check out Prosper.com for the non-3rd world starving kind.

  • DJF||

    But a big problem in the USA is not the money to buy a cow but getting all the permits, fees and lawyers to get permission to own a cow let alone sell the milk.

  • Major Johnson||

    +1

  • Tonio||

    It's called microlending. Can't remember any organizations but a google search on microlending should be a good start.

    Yeah, they finance "small" items like goats, cows, sewing machines. And the programs have been tremendously successful. Also they disproportionately help women since in many countries there are barriers to women obtaining bank loans on their own.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    If you aren't very familiar with microfinance, I would recommend that you start here.

  • Tonio||

    Thanks.

  • ||

    Wait a second. So the "beggars" who actually have homes because people give them money should no longer be supported? When everyone stops giving to them won't they actually become homeless and unemployed? It sounds to me the charity they receive is actually doing what is intended. Providing them a living. I don't give a shit if they make more than some arbitrary amount per year and don't pay taxes on it since I don't think there should be taxes on income anyway. If they are on public assistance, that's a problem solved by ending welfare, not ending their freely given support.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Bones,

    So the "beggars" who actually have homes because people give them money should no longer be supported?


    You may go ahead and continue supporting them all if you want. Just not with my money.

    When everyone stops giving to them won't they actually become homeless and unemployed?


    If they don't have a job and they get evicted from their home, then yes, but that can happen regardless of how much they receive from donations. A person can be both unemployed and a beggar. I don't see then the relevance of your question.

    It sounds to me the charity they receive is actually doing what is intended. Providing them a living.


    I would argue that one provides oneself a living by being productive. Charity is not supposed to be a substitute for one's productive efforts, only to help you get back on your feet.

    If they are on public assistance, that's a problem solved by ending welfare, not ending their freely given support.


    But if the support is freely given, then it follows that it can also be freely stopped, right? It is not like you want people to feel obligated to give to beggars, or am I wrong?

  • ||

    I don't think people should feel obligated to give to anyone. Yes, freely stopped, sure.

    I'd say the person standing on the corner making $50k/yr is productive. He found a way to get money for standing in a spot. That beats being taxed to pay ditch diggers and fillers any day.

    My overall point is, these street corner beggars are a charity regardless of how much they pull in. They live off the charity of others. If people who don't mind giving to them stop giving to them, they'll just be a poorer charity and probably end up begging on a street corner.

    Oh, wait.

  • Tonio||

    I haven't seen the episode in question, Bones, but I'm guessing that Stossel is referring to professional beggars who make a good income by misrepresenting themselves as homeless and needy.

  • ||

    My point is, who cares? Personally, I'd only drop a few pennies into their hat if they entertain me. But this sure doesn't seem like a big deal.

  • Major Johnson||

    Our government has done a thorough job of convincing Americans that only government can spend charitable funds in the right places. While Madison couldn't find any line in the constitution giving the government this power both R's and D's are spending on charity like drunken philanthropists with someone elses credit card, largely to people who don't need it or are just playing the system, leaving most of us who do give locally with less to give.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Strippers. Duh.

  • ||

    I used to know a stripper named Charity. Small world.

  • JWatts||

    Was the name Charity or was it Candy?

  • Alice Bowie||

    I hear America Loud and Clear.

    When Ron Paul was asked if he'd let a patient die that couldn't afford medical treatment, the MOB in the audience (the voting public, not the politician) spoke loud and clear.

    Romney giving to HIS church is not charity.

    Me giving to the United Way and making a bunch of suits rich is not either.

    I agree with the Libertarians, the government doesn't have to be in the business of charity.

    However, for American citizens, safety nets should exist. This is not charity.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    The medical question is for suckers, because the answer given must be determined by the specific circumstances, parameters, etc.

    You might as well ask someone, "Should you do A, or B?" I answer, "C: Not enough information."

  • Alice Bowie||

    That question is so far from A,B, and C that it's not funny.

    But you do prove a point. Charity will be given due to parameters.

    For example, perhaps a single mom can be left to starve as a religious person may find her to be a mere sinner.

    The good thing about government giving charity is that it doesn't ask you why you are poor. And to many people, being born to a poor person in the Projects or a Trailer park is just not ample reason to give to charity.

    So, god forbid if you ended up needing charity but those that can give view you as one non-deserving because of color, religion, education, because your business failed, because you were laid off, because you are lazy, etc.

  • trshmnstr||

    For example, perhaps a single mom can be left to starve as a religious person may find her to be a mere sinner.

    How mendacious of you. Perhaps the government could give her some subsistence check that does nothing more than fuel a fast food habit and spur on health issues. Then, they can disincentivize working enough so that she and her children are effectively banished to a poverty line existence for generations... oh, wait!

    The good thing about government giving charity is that it doesn't ask you why you are poor.

    That's a terrible thing about government giving charity. If you don't know what is causing the problem, you're throwing good money after bad. What the hell is the point of cutting a check to an alcoholic or drug addict? They're just gonna blow the money on booze or drugs. Government just keeps cutting checks to people like this, hoping that some day they wise up and dig themselves out. Not surprisingly, that's the extreme exception.

    So, god forbid if you ended up needing charity but those that can give view you as one non-deserving because of color, religion, education, because your business failed, because you were laid off, because you are lazy, etc.

    I'm entitled to their charity why? It's well within their 1st amendment rights to give or not give charity based on whichever factors they want. That is, unless charities like the United Negro College Fund are evil.

  • trshmnstr||

    We get it Alice, the evil Crishtuns are the primary charities beyond the gubmint, so you expect their charities to be hateful, bigoted, and evil. Try concealing your bigotry a little better next time.

  • LynchPin1477||

    So, god forbid if you ended up needing charity but those that can give view you as one non-deserving because of color, religion, education, because your business failed, because you were laid off, because you are lazy, etc.

    It is a well known fact that only racists, religious bigots, ivory tower snobs, and social darwinists give to charity. Enlightened, tolerant, inclusive, and compassionate people hoard all their money.

  • ||

    The good thing about government giving charity is that it doesn't ask you why you are poor. And to many people, being born to a poor person in the Projects or a Trailer park is just not ample reason to give to charity.

    In actual practice, it doesn't even ask if you are poor or really care if money may or may not be the solution to your problem. Shooting deaths, a lack of healthy food options, and hospitals are a problem in your neighborhood? Here's some free insurance, food stamps, and we'll hire more police officers.

    So, god forbid if you ended up needing charity but those that can give view you as one non-deserving because of color, religion, education, because your business failed, because you were laid off, because you are lazy, etc.

    And God forbid that if someone found me to be lazy, white, Christian, or just a failure that they be compelled to give (or worse yet, take action) against their will. I know in my times of hardship I've been thankful that I'm not compelled to give more than what is already taken.

  • ||

    However, for American citizens, safety nets should exist. This is not charity.

    You're right, charity is when someone gives of their own free will. Compelling someone to give through threat of force or legal action is usually called extortion.

    BTW- Mind clearing up a little detail around your oversimplified and misguided pleasantry? What exactly constitutes an American citizen?

  • dan'o||

    My retired dad got involved in a fascinating charity in South Vietnman. Its run by a catholic bishop (catholics are big time minorities there.) All of their programs are based on startup cash leading to self sustaining industries. For example:
    - They purchase pigs and give them to a family
    - They are provided all feed necessary to keep them going
    - The matron is trained on how to raise them
    - Once they are taken to market the startup cost goes back to the charitable fund.
    - The family raises the succeeding generations and have created a viable second source of income (dad keeps his job during this time.)

    They also have dug a couple dozen wells and sell the water at 1/3 the typical price, but exactly enough to maintain the operation.

    Best part about their ideas in my opinion is that people get to maintain their dignity by "learning to fish" rather than get handouts, and the charity is hyper-efficient with its cash and continues to grow, serving hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese.

  • dan'o||

    can't edit damnit.
    - Once the pigs go to market for sale the startup money comes off the top (how I should have written it)

  • ||

    I've always been weary of the street beggars that are there winter after winter. I couldn't ever fathom that, at some point, you don't get up enough money to buy a bus ticket to the nearest Southern destination and live a little more warmly.

    I tip heavily and arguably undeservedly rather than donating during the holidays. Garbage men, package delivery people, the kid working at Best Buy on Thanksgiving at 10 p.m. they're doing a job and often at a time when I myself wouldn't want to be doing it.

    I also give in non-fiat goods; canned food, clothes, clean water. It may be used to keep a drunk warm, fed, and hydrated, but only the most entrepreneurial drunks are able to get alcohol out of them. Give the homeless a shovel or a couple 2x4s maybe some concrete and a patching trowel to fix the crumbling infrastructure they supposedly live under.

  • ||

    Yeah, I don't get it either. You got all summer to walk south. Hop a freight train. I'd much rather be hassled by Florida beach cops than freeze my nuts off being hassled by NYC cops. Gonna get hassled, get hassled in South Beach. In fact, you probably would blend in with the wrinkled guys in speedos and roller skates. Crazy is allowed there.

  • woodNfish||

    "Weary" or "leary"?

    Why do you tip heavily for package delivery? Do you thin UPS, Fed_ex, and UPS people are underpaid? They aren't.

  • ||

    Mr Stossel:
    You've missed something here:

    Social workers say, "Don't give to beggars." Those who do give are "enablers," helping alcoholics and drug users to continue bad habits. It's better to give to charities that help the "homeless." I put "homeless" in quotes because my TV producers have quietly followed a dozen of the more convincing beggars after "work," and all had homes.


    You've conflated "homeless" and "beggar." The charities helping the homeless generally speaking are not helping beggars. I believe most of the people getting assistance from organizations like my local PADS would be insulted by the implication that they are begging.

  • Tonio||

    A good distinction. Not all homeless beg. And certainly not all beggars are homeless. By not giving cash donations to individuals you weed out the professional beggars who make a good living off of their act, as well as the people just looking for money for booze, drugs, etc.

    The shelters and charities aren't perfect, but they're a surer bet than handing a buck to a beggar.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Someone asked me above:

    What exactly constitutes an American citizen?

    I've had this discussion with many people.

    It comes down to whether you believe that Person A can be a member of GROUP 1 even if the vast majority of GROUP 1's members doesn't consider that Person A a member.

    Many people don't consider me an American.
    Many people don't consider Barak an American.
    Many people don't consider many people as Americans.

  • JWatts||

    Many people don't consider Barak an American.

    I wouldn't consider the former Prime Minister of Israel as American either.

    Many people don't consider many people as Americans.

    I've got to admit that I classify 95% of Terrans as non-Americans, also.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Hey Y’all: Gotta explain (“as you would to a child”, as the ugly space alien said on “Galaxy Quest”): AmeriKKKans are LEGAL pepples. All that them thar “others”, since they had the exquisitely BAD judgment to be born 5 yards or more on the BAD side of the border, those other 95-some % of Terrans are known as “ILLEGAL humans”. The Religious Right (AKA the Church of the Republicrat Party) has called GOD HIMSELF on that them thar telephone (emailed Him? Twittered Him? Not sure on the details, must ‘fess up), and has CONFIRMED that this is THE MIND OF GOD that had pronounced this LEGAL humanoid / ILLEGAL humanoid divide, as being Divinely Ordained… Now ACCEPT the Will of God, and slink away in peace and quiet, please…

  • Russell||

    One should never give money to an alcoholic beggar.

    Charity demands they be given cigarettes, and told to keep the pack.

  • woodNfish||

    Ted Turner is a commie asshole. He got his and fuck everyone else seems to be his attitude. He could go crawl in a hole and die (please take your traitor bitch with you Ted), and the world would be a better place.

  • parkerbce586||

    my neighbor's mother makes 63 BUCKS every hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for 7 months but last month her pay check was 15302 BUCKSjust working on the laptop for a few hours. Learn More Here
    ===========================
    http://www.fb49.com
    ===========================

  • Duelles||

    Yea for Bono! I was alway disappointed in him. Especially since his mother maiden name is my family name, but he was a bit to progressive. I'll cheer him on and let my socialist friends in on his conversion.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement