Reason Morning Links: NATO Brings Karzai and Taliban Together, Virginia Thomas Calls Anita Hill, GOP Widens Lead

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.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    Some of the comments, of the form "Beck's refusal to say something I could use to excuse hating him makes me hate him" are priceless.

    Glenn Beck Condemns Anti-Gay Bronx Attacks: 'A Whole New Level Of Evil' (VIDEO)

  • MNG||

    Beck: Beating gays is evil, don't these thugs know only legal marginalization of gays is appropriate?"

    ;) seriously though kudos for him for coming out and saying this

  • Michael||

    Some of those comments are riotously funny. I'm not even going to try wrapping my brain around this one:

    The root cause of the screen-based social isolation and cult of anonymity he observes is capitalism.

  • Cyto||

    The comments are truly amazing, but you don't even have to go to the comment gutter to see the lunacy. The tags for the article include "Glen Beck Anti-Gay", "Glen Beck Gay Bashing", etc. Even though every word of the article and video is Beck being the opposite of these tags, some people can only see their political opponents as enemies and evil.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Beck is no more honest or sincere about this issue than he is any other issue. He's simply trying to improve the media spin for his mormon church. I'm certain he's as homophobic as his Only True Prophets are.

    Right. Because although we'll accept at face value any bullshit that Our Dear Leader (pbuh) or his sycophantic lesser demons force down our throats, we'll disregard what Glenn Beck so plainly and reasonably states, because we know he's just bullshitting to cover his true agenda.

    Yup - just more evidence of the human propensity to believe what one chooses to believe, regardless of empirical data or evidence to the contrary.

    Funny thing - I've been listening to Beck right now at work, and he's just been ranting about teaching evolution in schools and the science and theory of evolution in general. Sheesh. It's kinda painful to listen to. I generally enjoy listening to him, not because I agree with everything he says, but simply because he can be pretty funny and entertaining. But when he really should stay away from talking about science, because he's really got no clue what he's talking about.

  • prolefeed||

    a lengthy, impassioned condemnation of the brutal anti-gay assault and torture of two teenage boys ...

    Beck said the attackers -- who, among other things, tortured, beat and sodomized their victims

    WTF? Anti-gay attackers sodomizing gay men? Did I read that right?

  • Fluffy||

    Iin response to a phone call for an old acquaintance merely asking for an apology and some closure on an old wrong, Anita Hill called the police and the FBI.

    I think this pretty much establishes what should have been clear to everyone at the time: Hill is a hysterical and paranoid bitch.

  • MNG||

    +1
    I mean, WTF? Virginia Thomas does a humane thing like call and try to initiate a dialogue and Hill calls the police, FBI and makes it a press issue. Good lord.

  • Fluffy||

    And it does pretty much tell us where she sets the bar of what constitutes an actionable grievance.

    I now have to evaluate all her other complaints with this in mind.

  • MNG||

    Indeed.

  • ||

    What you guys don't realize is that the call originated from INSIDE THE BUILDING!!!

  • MNG||

    +1

  • ||

    Have you checked the children?

  • ||

    Mild correction...according to AP:

    When Hill heard the voicemail, she contacted Brandeis' public safety office, which in turn informed the FBI.

    So it was Brandeis who brought in the FBI (WTF? still). But regardless, the fact that Hill called Brandeis public safety and then brought the press into this is all that's needed to confirm your statement.

  • Abdul||

    The account i heard was that Hill thought that the voicemail from Mrs. Thomas was a prank because it came so many years later and with no advance warning. That does seem like a reasonable assumption.

    Unlike, say, attempting to ruin a man's career after riding his coattails through at least two prestigious legal jobs.

  • ||

    Really? She suffers under the idea that women forget personal transgressions prior to death?

  • kinnath||

    Karma . . . They carry them with them from life to life . . .

  • Cyto||

    I have some question about the reasonableness of her actions as she describes them. Her claim is she thought she got a prank voicemail asking for an apology. In what world is a single non-threatening voicemail reason for involving the police? Is this because of a background of real threats a couple of decades back? I suppose that makes some sense.

    In light of her tearful testimony about the horror of "he asked, 'who left this pubic hair on my coke?'", I suppose I can see her being the type to react with great offense to such an inoffensive prank. I wonder what it is in people that allows them to treat the unserious so seriously? Remember Joe Biden's red-faced, spit-laden indignation over the horror of the coke joke? I can only imagine the officials at the campus police in all official seriousness taking down the serious report of a seriously dangerous voicemail and in a very officious and serious manner passing the investigation along to the FBI, lest these serious allegations not be seriously investigated. Seriously.

    Of course, remembering the time of the Thomas hearings I do suppose there is further reason for her indignation. It was axiomatic that you not question a woman making accusations of sexism or harassment - to do so is sexist and insensitive, tantamount to violence against women. Forget suggesting that she may not be telling the gospel truth, opining that even if true her allegations don't merit serious consideration was not even a plausible position to stake out. So 20 years down the road, anyone suggesting that she has something to apologize for is not only attacking her credibility, but all of feminism - pretty much everything she has stood for her entire life is under threat. So I guess from that point of view getting the police involved is the least she could do.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    I particularly like this:

    Ms. Hill noted that she had been accused of harboring a romantic interest in Justice Thomas by his wife....“And one can imagine that she is guided by her own romantic interest in her husband when she assumes that other women find him attractive as well.”

    Is it just me, or does she make it sound like Mrs. Thomas is some sort of wacko for maybe loving her husband and thinking he's attractive? Like it's unusual for someone to have romantic feelings for one's own spouse?

  • Mo||

    It sounds more like she's accusing Mrs. Thomas of being one of those crazy women who think every female is after her man. As someone who has dated a person like that, it's not a crazy theory.

  • zoltan||

    Ugh, I hate these women. Their husbands are homely 50-year-olds and they think every other woman is after him.

  • ||

    Slut, you ignorant slut!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Anyone want to take bets on Gloria Allred getting involved in this?

  • Cyto||

    +1 funny
    +1 probably true

  • hmm||

    This is well above Allred's pay scale.

  • cynical||

    Yeah. In a story chock full of stupid, that pretty well takes the cake.

  • ||

    If I see "Professor" Anita Hill on campus, I'd give her a piece of my mind.

    The campus police here would delight in making a big deal out of nothing. It's no surprise they called the FBI. They must have been taking a break from using fire drills to search for drug paraphernalia.

  • Ragin Cajun||

  • Brett L||

    Apparently, having the good sense to leave a developing riot is a fatal mistake if you happen to be a black male. The cops keep saying two officers were "run down", but won't cite any injuries. My guess is run down means standing within 20 feet when the kid engaged the transmission.

  • MNG||

    They probably meant someone was taping them with their cell phone...

  • Fluffy||

    The witnesses say the kid tried to move his car from the fire lane, and a cop leapt on to the hood to block him and started firing.

    I think this may have been one of those "I am so pissed at you for running away that I have to kill you" times for these cops, and they had to make up a story to make it a good shoot afterwards.

  • ||

    Jesus Christ. Every time I think it can't get more appalling, it does.

  • Abdul||

    a cop leapt on to the hood to block him and started firing.

    Wait, TJ hooker wasn't a training video?

  • ||

    "Well don't just sit there. Shoot him! Get him!"

  • Brett L||

    +1 for the True Romance reference.

  • ||

    So, the promotions, bonuses and meritorious accommodations are being prepared as we read about this?

  • Antonin||

    New professionalism, bitches.

  • ||

    Did he have a snowball?

  • Cyto||

    The witnesses version of events jibes well with my experience. I was attending a large sporting event with lots of police directing traffic as a VIP guest of the organizers and needed to get to a particular entrance. I pulled off the road while my wife spoke with a state patrolman about how to get to the correct location. Another patrolman came over from the opposite side of the road and began yelling at me to move. When I tried to explain what we were doing he unsnapped his holster and put his hand on his weapon and ordered me to move or be arrested. He was probably 2 seconds away from drawing his gun on me when my wife got back in the car. Once steroid-boy got all jacked up, the path that had been cleared for us by my wife was closed up. We missed our appointment with the organizers and wasted a 4 hour drive. At least we didn't get shot! Thanks guys!

  • hmm||

    I almost got into a BBQ rumble with 3 cops when I was a medic over stating that a medic should triage according to the rules of triage which have nothing to do with profession or anything other than medical condition.

  • blue supremacist||

    You would prioritize a nigger non-cop over a white person cop? Where are your priorities, boy?

  • Johnny Longtorso||

  • MNG||

    "Desperation: Barney Frank lent campaign $200,000 in third quarter"

    Wow, if that's a sign of desperation then Meg Whitman must be reeeaally desperate as she's thrown exponentially more of her own money into her campaign.

  • ||

    Meg Wittman is a gazzilionaire who has never held public office. Barney Frank in contrast is just a crooked Congress creature. Congress Creatures are supposed to raise their own money from various people they bribe and shake down once in office. Barney Frank having to loan himself money to campaign is a very bad sign.

  • MNG||

    Werent you the one defending O'Donnell paying herself with campaign funds on the idea that it allows "regular people" to run for office?

  • ||

    What does that have to do with anything you nitwit? I am not saying Barney Frank is crooked for loaning his campaign money. I am saying the fact that he is having to, and thus apparently can't raise money like a normal crooked Congress creature can, is a sign that his campaign may be in trouble. And no, there is nothing wrong with O'Donnell paying herself out of campaign funds, or Barney or Wittman spending their own money.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Frank is crooked for what he did to help create the housing bubble and its side-effects.

  • ||

    it's a bad sign because it means he didn't bribe and shake down enough people? I don't follow, John. How is this a bad thing exactly?

  • NoVAHockey||

    bad sign for his campaign. good sign for the nation.

  • ||

    It is a bad sign because it means that people are not donating to his campaign meaning they are starting to think he won't be around to shake them down or bribe them. When an incumbent chair of a major committee can't raise money easily, he is in a lot of trouble.

  • ||

    I think this is a good thing. I just got my bad and good all crossed up. It happens.

  • ||

    Ms. Hill, in an interview, said she had kept the message for nearly a week trying to decide whether the caller really was Ms. Thomas or a prankster. Unsure, she said, she decided to turn it over to the Brandeis campus police with a request to convey it the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    WTF? The FBI?

    What tough stuff this Womyn's Studies professor must be made out of, to go running off to The Man for protection from that dangerous apology requester.

  • Fluffy||

    http://www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=4145

  • ||

    Excellent.

    What amazes me so, is that among of all her options:

    Delete the message unanswered
    Inquire within Thomas' office
    Reply with a polite and civil letter, declining to apologize
    Consult with the Magic 8-Ball and Staples Easy Button
    Ask her transgendered heterosexual life partner what to do
    Personal bloody vengence

    She goes with Plan Z, save the message, write a press release and call in a request for an air strike.

    She's the modern model of sanity and stability.

  • ||

    I would suppose making up a story and trying to ruin someone's career with it and then gaining tremendous personal benefit from the lie would do weird things to your psyche over time.

  • Zeb||

    WTF indeed. Exactly what crime was supposed to have been committed here?

  • ||

    The only crime was Brandeis hiring Anita Hill as a "professor."

  • Brett L||

    Ah. Its voters who are out of touch with reality. Silly me. I thought elected officials were elected to do the will of the people within the framework of the Constitution. Must be my inferior public education.

  • ||

    So the bottom line is that "free" checking as we knew it was funded by fiscally irresponsible people like me who would overdraw their accounts and pay the overdraft fees?

    So the tea baggers want people to be irresponsible and generate fees that they can benefit from?

    Why should I pay for a tea bagger to have free checking, they should be personally responsible enough to pay for their own free checking.

  • Fluffy||

    This is a joke, right?

  • ||

    Actually, it's partially true, isn't it? "Free" checking exists because the fees that fiscally irresponsible people generate cover the costs.

  • ||

    Works for me.

    It also might have something to do with the profit from lending out the money in my account. George Bailey can explain how that works.

  • ||

    Guess it's time to start using cash only then because BANKS all over America have destroyed the concept of integrity. They rake people over the coals and cry if they don't make trillions in profits. This may be a joke to the teabaggers, but not to real Americans.

  • ||

    I just want consistency. Is it "tea baggers" or "teabaggers"?

  • ||

    I don't know or care. If you check my email you'll see I was just copying some choice huffpo comments for the trollollols. It worked. I love you H&R.

  • ||

    No kidding. But nice spoof. You fooled many.

  • ||

    surprisingly enough, some comments over at huff also called out the original author for their belligerent stupidity. but most cheered it on.

  • ||

    This is why I never read Huff n' Puff, even though my liberal friends all keep telling me how funny and relevant it is.

  • hmm||

    I'm telling you the comments of Huffpo are 10 guys trolling the entire Progressive/Liberal world.

  • Brett L||

    You spend money you don't have and then get upset when the bank charges you for either expecting them to cover it, or co-mingling their name with your fraud? I'm crying my eyes out for you.

  • ||

    Short answers:

    1. Yes.
    2. Yes.
    3. Because you are so goddamn stupid, that's why.

    Further questions?

  • Michael||

    Actually, those fees weren't primarily paying for everyone else to enjoy free checking. They were charged to cover losses the banks were incurring due to habitual overdrafters and to deter these accounts (something like less than 2% of all checking customers) from going delinquent. I didn't expect an article on Huffington Post to mention this minute, trivial detail.

  • ||

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/h.....hemselves/

    This was pretty funny. Kos and his followers really are dumb as posts.

  • Brett L||

    Its like she has some sort of field effect on people. I don't get it. I don't find her particularly dumb for a politician. I also don't expect her to personally come up with a plan to solve the world's problems, either.

    She's like the Roadrunner. She just keeps being herself while supposed geniuses go to Wile E. Coyote style smashups trying to kill her career.

  • ||

    It is funny. How did they even know she said it? Isn't she an idiot not worth listening to? Yet, somehow they seem to hang on her every word waiting to jump on anything about them.

    I like the woman and had no idea she said this until I heard about it after the KOSites had mad asses of themselves. Apparently the KOSites spend a lot of time watching her every move and hanging on her every word.

  • ||

    You win this time, Palin Derangement Syndrome...you win this time.

  • ||

    I may have to break my follow no one on twitter rule. Iowahawk's attack on Kos is awesome.

  • hmm||

    That is pretty funny. The problem with claiming to be smarter all the time is sooner or later you look like an idiot.

    For KOS it's sooner than later since they look like idiots almost 24/7.

  • MNG||

  • kinnath||

    Economics

    http://xkcd.com/

  • ||

    Where are all the White Women?

  • Rich||

    ad that asks, among other things: "Why did Rand Paul once tie a woman up?"

    Cool. Now he's got the bondage contingent on his side.

  • TickleStick||

    Report: In Obama's Chicago, stimulus weatherization money buys shoddy work, widespread fraud:

    Projects to weatherize homes are a key part of the Obama administration's fusion of stimulus spending and the green agenda. But a new report by the Department of Energy has found serious problems in stimulus-funded weatherization work -- problems so severe that they have resulted in homes that are not only not more energy efficient but are actually dangerous for people to live in.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer......z12uE1G6Cs

  • 2010 Voter||

    Republican candidates and party leaders are offering few specifics about how they would tackle the nation’s $13.7 trillion debt

    "Son, your shenanigans are gonna cost me this election."

    Vote third party or independent. All incumbents out.

  • Brett L||

    Also, Republicans wobbly on Obamacare repeal.

    Jesus. Its like Charlie Brown and the football.

  • cynical||

    How will voting third party or independent result in the incumbents being voted out?

  • Solanum||

    John Cole throws a hissy fit because city digs up his yard. Who's to blame? Libertarians, of course.

    "If libertarians would focus on crap like this instead of all the smug bullshit and contrarian economic analysis, they might actually be able to build their party."

    http://www.balloon-juice.com/2.....overnment/

  • Brett L||

    Sure, now that its HIS private property, suddenly it matters.

  • Abdul||

    Awesome!

    For the record, it appears to be a utility company digging through their easement on his property, not the government (although, they are so closely regulated and supported by the government that it is hard to tell the difference sometimes) so Cole can go back to hating corporations and capitalism.

  • ||

    That means it is not "his property". They have an easement. If Cole didn't want his yard dug up, he should have bought a house that didn't have any easements on it. As usual anything beyond the most simple concept of property eludes a liberal.

  • ||

    As usual anything beyond the most simple concept of property eludes a liberal.

    Sorry, but it is clear they don't even understand the simplest concepts of property. "Yours until someone else wants it" is as basic a misunderstanding that can exist.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Actually, it is "his" property - in that he has legal title to and possession of it. But the easement granted the utility company certain rights to use that specific portion of the property in certain ways.

    If Cole didn't want his yard dug up, he should have bought a house that didn't have any easements on it.

    Exactly.

    In general, if you want electricity, water or sewer services connected to your house, you're almost certainly going to have some kind of easement somewhere on your property.

  • ||

    Electricity doesn't come from the light socket. If you want those services, you have to be willing to let the utility company do what is necessary to provide the services.

    Cole is actually worse than I thought above not that I think about it. He apparently thinks that utility services should be provided by magic unicorn so that no one's yard ever gets damaged.

  • Brett L||

    Yup. I hate my HOA on principle, but I don't really have any property rights complaint against them. The covenants conditions of owning the piece of property. I'm considering working to get myself elected to the board, along with another friend who lives in the neighborhood, and stripping the rules to as few as possible while approving every property modification request, especially the retroactive ones.

    Unfortunately we need at least 2 more reliable subversives.

  • T||

    I applaud and support your actions. I would do the same if I hadn't already made myself politically radioactive within the subdivision. I am a known malcontent and subversive, so the forces of busybody would mobilize against me.

  • Abdul||

    I lived in an HOA for a year and vowed "never again."

    Nothing turns ordinary people into Statsi informers quicker than the belief that their property values are somehow inextricably linked to whether or not your following the Condo code to the letter.

  • Abdul||

    "you're following"

    Please don't turn me in, Condo grammar Statsi!

  • hmm||

    Right-of-way is legally granted access by the government. So it is the government.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Uh, wut?

    An easement is a property right granted by the property owner to someone else. The government cannot grant someone access to your private property, short of an eminent domain action.

    Of course, in these post-Kelo days, that doesn't mean too much.

  • hmm||

    The city holds the legal agreement to use the right of way. They are capable of allowing proxies, the utility companies, of using it.

    Right of way is not exactly the same as easement. Easement is between you and the utility, right of way is used by government. For instance when working urban forestry the right of way was the property the city laid claim to, regardless of agreement, that was not a portion of the existing roadway, derived by a specific distance from the center-line of the road. The city could do anything they wanted with this portion of property that the homeowner was required to upkeep, except trees in this cities case.

    An easement was generally used to reference utility agreements and didn't involve government.

    Odds are this was an easement and an agreement between the home owner and the utility. But the article is quoted as saying right-a-way.

  • creech||

    The guy is right. Libertarians will be far more successful engaging the local political SOBs than, say, Nolan
    trying to cost McCain his senatorial seat. No one is going to vote for the LP to take on the big tyrants if they
    can't/won't fight the local petty tyrants.

  • hmm||

    Politically he's right. (but that's not his point)

    Philosophically he's showing himself to be about as thick as elephant cock.

  • cynical||

    What the fuck all does that have to with him whining about people doing work on his easement?

  • TickleStick||

    Last night Frontline did a piece on that guy in Texas who was executed for burning his 3 daughters to death. There are people who think he was innocent, but I don't because there was no compelling evidence that he wasn't. There was a burn expert who said that new understanding of burn patterns indicated that there was no accelerant used to start the fire. So? You can easily start your house on fire without it. And this whole the guy is innocent meme came about because some weird woman decided to be his pen pal. That's really all they have - a pen pal who says he didn't do it and a guy who said no accelerant was used. So basically, nothing.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I read a short piece about that case the other day - as I recall, the issue was that the "expert" who testified that an accelerant had been used (i.e., the prosecution argued that this guy poured some kind of fuel on them and set them on fire) has been discredited as using junk investigative techniques. Kind of like that bite mark dude.

    And if I'm recalling correctly, the state fought to have any new evidence examined - i.e., they didn't want to take a look at anything that might have proved this guy actually didn't do it.

  • Andrew S.||

    Thank you for that completely true and correct* statement!

    * Well, the first sentence and a half were true. After "there was no compelling evidence he wasn't", it gets a bit murky. And by that, I mean you have no clue about the actual facts. I'll even help you learn: http://www.innocenceproject.or....._Texas.php

  • Fluffy||

    If you're going to execute someone for committing an arson that results in death, your evidence that there was actually an arson better be fucking iron clad.

    And "You can't prove there was NO arson" just doesn't cut it, dickwad.

    If the state contended that they knew it was arson because an accelerant was used, and we now know that no accelerant that used, that is determinative.

  • ||

    This is something the left and right both need to get through their thick skulls: Government is not only quite fallible, it's also not trustworthy. In anything it does. Working from that starting point, we might be able to get things straightened out somewhat in this country.

  • Cyto||

    Conspiracy theorist!

  • ||

    It's not paranoia when they're really out to destroy you, your family, your friends, and your country.

  • Mo||

    Last night Frontline did a piece on that guy in Texas who was executed for burning his 3 daughters to death. There are people who think he was innocent, but I don't because there was no compelling evidence that he wasn't.

    When did "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" turn into "there was no compelling evidence he wasn't guilty"?

  • Spoonman.||

    There are people who think he was innocent, but I don't because there was no compelling evidence that he wasn't.


    DIAF

  • Bingo||

    Eat shit and die, bootlicker.

  • Mike M.||

    In the latest news on the worldwide decline of the Bismarckian welfare superstate, the U.K. is expected to cut half a million government jobs over the next five years.

    If only we could pull off the same thing here in the states.

  • ||

    The comparable US number would be north of 2 million [put pinky at corner of mouth] government jobs "attrited" over the next five years.

    Its like a dream. A crazy, crazy dream.

  • ||

    With the public sector unions, such a move would be tough here. Unless the GOP grew some balls, anyway.

  • hmm||

    Fox reported this with astonishment that the UK was cutting the military budget. I LoLed.

  • ||

    It was hilarious listening to them talk about this on morning edition. When asked why Britain was doing this and not the United States, the answer was essentially the United States can more easily borrow more money from China than the UK. They decided that this was a good thing because Americans didn't have the stomach for belt-tightening like the Brits do, so our politicians have to spend money to stimulate the economy.

  • Fluffy||

    http://www.boston.com/news/loc.....News_links

    This is a nice link.

    A GOP congressional candidate in MA is a former cop, who just so happened to try to help a fellow cop cover up a sexual assault on a 14 year old.

    I thought the teen raping was only supposed to start after they GOT INTO Congress.

  • Steve Smith||

    WHY COVER UP RAPE?

    RAPE FREE, RAPE PROUD LIKE 'SQUATCH!

  • Warty||

  • Warty||

    But on a truly normal evening, Acy Cooper Jr. would be out shrimping. Instead, one recent night, he was staying home, as he has done more often these days.

    "Why? It don't pay me to do that when they're going to pay my claim anyway," said Cooper, vice president of the state's shrimpers association.

    This is a travesty. Everyone knows the way to help the economy would be to pay him to burn his catch, not to sit at home.

  • Brett L||

    No, he dumps his catch in the fields, the farmers dump their wheat in the ocean, everybody on the dole wins!

  • ||

    So the bottom line is that "free" checking as we knew it was funded by fiscally irresponsible people like me who would overdraw their accounts and pay the overdraft fees?

    That's funny, I thought it was people like me who keep lots of money in their checking accounts because they're too dumb/lazy to buy CDs.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Dude, CDs are dead, mp3 is the thing now. Or vinyl if you're one of those types.

  • ||

    There are people who think he was innocent, but I don't because there was no compelling evidence that he wasn't.

    FUCK

    YOU

  • T||

    I think the appropriate response here is actually:

    DIAF

  • دردشه عراقية||

    Thanks

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