Justin Amash

A New Kind of Republican

Congressman Justin Amash discusses libertarian foreign policy, Austrian economics, civil liberties, abortion, and more.

|

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), often touted as "the next Ron Paul" (by this magazine, among others), had a rocky start to his second term in Congress. After overcoming a redistricting effort to win re-election by a comfortable margin in November, Amash was welcomed back to Washington with a pink slip: He and a group of libertarian-leaning backbenchers were stripped of their committee assignments by the GOP leadership. Adding insult to injury, the party establishment claimed that the rebuke wasn't ideological; that it had more to do with what Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) termed "the asshole factor."

Amash, seen as the ringleader of the House "liberty movement," responded by leading a failed coup against House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in what was supposed to be a rubber-stamped re-election as majority leader. Meanwhile, on a series of crucial votes—the "fiscal cliff" tax hike in January and the March agreement to raise the debt ceiling—Amash and several of his uppity libertarian colleagues voted against party leadership. If Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is the leading liberty-movement troublemaker in the United States Senate, Amash is shaping up to be his main counterpart in the House.

Endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus and Young Americans for Liberty, the 33-year-old Amash has made waves by explaining all of his votes on social media, a practice he began during his single term as a Michigan state legislator. He has earned a 100 percent rating from the fiscally conservative Club for Growth, and has taken up where Ron Paul left off on civil liberties.

The son of Syrian and Palestinian immigrants, Amash has made a name for himself as a non-interventionist. "It's very dangerous if we get in the habit of deciding who the good guys are and who the bad guys are," he says of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and other unsavory characters. He's also a social conservative, describing himself as "100 percent pro-life," but opining that ultimately, "marriage is a private contract that has nothing to do with government."

In March, reason.com Editor in Chief Nick Gillespie interviewed Amash in his office, where the walls are adorned with likenesses of Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Carl Menger, Murray Rothbard, and Ayn Rand. For video of the interview, go to reason.com.

reason: Talk a little bit about your general political philosophy. At reason we've called you the heir to the mantle of Ron Paul—is that accurate?

Justin Amash: Well, I'm a libertarian Republican, a constitutional conservative, a classical liberal.

reason: You've got more Austrians on your wall than the Von Trapp family.

Amash: I'm a big believer in the Austrian school of economics. But you know, I'm an independent and a moderate. Many people would look at my voting record and say: This is a moderate guy, he's willing to work with both sides, he's willing to do what the Founders intended for this country and not just play the political games.

(Interview continues below video.)

reason: Talk a little bit about foreign policy. You're what is called an isolationist or—in more polite company—a non-interventionist. How do you define your foreign policy? And what's a libertarian vision of foreign policy that is not simply saying "the world should just go away"?

Amash: It's a constitutional foreign policy. You're right to say it's not isolationist. When you decide how to deal with countries that are threats and you put sanctions on them and isolate them, that's isolationist. I've called for non-interventionism: We don't send our troops everywhere else in the world to deal with everyone else's problems, we have to defend the homeland here, and we follow constitutional policy.

reason: Meaning?

Amash: If there's a threat, the president comes to Congress. Congress has to pass an authorization for war and then the president is authorized to do what he needs to do. But it should always go back to the people's house.

reason: So the American forces that were used in Libya, that's clearly unconstitutional?

Amash: Yeah, clearly unconstitutional.

reason: What about in Afghanistan and Iraq? Because there was an authorization for the use of military force. Is that still binding? What's wrong with that as a blank check for the president to keep prosecuting the war on terror?

Amash: I think it's okay for Congress to give authorizations that—it doesn't have to read "Declaration of War." I think what the Founders really intended was that Congress would be the starting point for all this. So whether you call it an authorization or a declaration of war is not as big a deal to me. But the war in Afghanistan, that's the longest war in U.S history, and now—

reason: Should we have invaded Afghanistan?

Amash: I think so, at the time. And it should have been for a limited purpose: to take out the terrorists who targeted us on 9/11.

reason: You have been an outspoken critic of the use of drones, particularly in countries we're not officially at war with. But going after bin Laden in Pakistan, say: Is that legal under the authorization that sanctioned intervening in Afghanistan?

Amash: I think so, to go after bin Laden. He was clearly in charge of the operation and I think it was legal to go after him. There are a lot of other situations where it's more questionable. If we're going after people who have nothing to do with 9/11, whether they are terrorists or not, it's the president's job to come back to Congress and say, "This is who we're going after and this is why," and for Congress to give the authorization.

reason: You were 21 when 9/11 happened. Was that a formative experience for you, in terms of how you thought about politics and America's role in the world?

Amash: It had a big impact on me. I think I cried for six days. It was not a small deal to me when that happened, like for every American. It got me more interested in politics. I don't think I developed some of my more libertarian leanings in a clear way until I was well out of college, well out of law school even. It did have a big impact on my life. I felt like this country is important. It is the beacon of liberty for the world.

reason: Do you think the 9/11 attacks were a result of blowback?

Amash: I think you can't blame everything on blowback and you also can't [say] our actions overseas don't have an impact on other people. You've got to look at the totality of it. Certainly there are things that we do overseas that incite people and get people upset. That doesn't give them any justification to come here and commit terrorist attacks against innocent people. But we need to look at our foreign policy and make sure we're not riling people up.

reason: Here we are a dozen years after 9/11 and Iran and Syria are our front-burner foreign policy issues. What should we be doing with Syria? Here we have a dictator who is a horrible, horrible leader who commits atrocities on a daily basis, but what does that mean to the United States?

Amash: Well, my mom is Syrian so I understand the situation a little bit. I think, of course, that Assad is a dictator. What his regime is doing is horrible. They are committing war crimes against the people on a daily basis. But the fact is that our national defense should be used for our defense here in the United States. And it's very dangerous if we get in the habit of deciding who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.

Because as bad as Assad is, you don't know who is going to come and replace him. They may be just as bad, and suddenly you've helped arm people who are going to commit the same atrocities and maybe come use [those arms] against the United States. You have to be careful when you get involved in this stuff. If there's a clear threat to the United States, then the president should come to Congress and get the authorization necessary.

reason: So how does that play out in relation to Iran? Should the U.S be isolating Iran through trade sanctions? Should they be engaging them through open trade? What's the best way to work toward some kind of positive resolution both for people in Iran as well as the United States?

Amash: Iran is a much more real threat. They speak out against the United States on a regular basis; it's pretty clear they're trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Sanctions that are directed toward preventing them from getting weapons of mass destruction, I think those sanctions are useful and helpful in the short run. I'm not sure you'd want to use them for 20 years.

But there are other sanctions that are targeted at the people of Iran. Those are not beneficial to the United States. If I felt Iran was a genuine threat to the United States, I would give the president authorization to do what's necessary.

reason: I assume that you think that Americans should be able to trade freely with Cuba?

Amash: Yeah.

reason: Should we be able to trade with Iran in the same way? Subject to certain restrictions on military technology or something? Would that be a better situation than the one we're in now?

Amash: I think so, but again it depends on what you're trading with them. I think there should be efforts to prevent any sorts of weapons, especially weapons of mass destruction, from entering Iran. Trading handbags and those sorts of things, that's not a threat to the United States.

reason: Is what you're saying about a libertarian foreign policy getting through to your colleagues in the Republican caucus? You hear Republican think tanks saying: We need to have a certain amount of the budget going to defense, we can never cut spending, etc.

Amash: I think it actually is. If you look at some of the newer members in Congress, if you look at Thomas Massie [(R–Ky.)], many of the new members, they have a different perspective on this. I wouldn't say that they all have a libertarian perspective on foreign policy, but you have maybe three dozen who lean in that direction. I don't think you had that 10 years ago.

The message of "spend, spend, spend" on military spending doesn't make sense. We have a huge national debt, and the biggest threat to our country is to let that national debt grow. Eventually, when we have a situation when we need military spending, when we actually need the money to go to our military to fight a major war, we won't have that money. Why would we burn that money now when we don't have a major threat to the United States, instead of saving the money so that when we do have a major threat, we actually have it? Then we might have a defense that is even bigger than it is now, but it would be justified because there's an actual threat to the United States.

reason: You mentioned that your mother is from Syria. Your father is from Palestine. He moved to Michigan in the late '60s—

Amash: In '56.

reason: Talk a little bit about how the experience of having parents who were immigrants to America. How does that inform your position on immigration?

Amash: Immigration is an important thing for this country. Everyone at some point, for the most part, was an immigrant; they came here from somewhere else. It's important to have a regular flow of immigrants. The biggest problem is having a welfare state. And this is the problem that Europe has—it's not that they have a large immigrant flow into the countries, it's that when you have a large welfare state, there's not as much assimilation into the culture. So what's happened historically in the United States, because we haven't had as strong of a welfare system as they do in Europe, [s0] people come here and they assimilate, they adapt, they go to work, they become a part of the culture, and they become Americans, and that's what we'd like to see going forward.

reason: Let's talk a little bit about your intellectual underpinnings. Where did your interest in Austrian economists—or in Frederic Bastiat, the French journalist and thinker—come from?

Amash: It developed after law school, actually. I found that my views, although I was Republican, were different than a number of conservatives in my class. There weren't that many, there were probably five at my law school, but I was different than those five. I was wondering: What is it about me that makes my views different or not fit in with the typical Republican way of thinking?

reason: One of the things you noticed was that when you would talk to conservatives in a legal setting, they would always be on the side of the prosecutor and you would be on the side of the defendant.

Amash: Yeah, I had a natural sympathy toward the defense side. I believe strongly in protecting people's constitutional rights and making sure they get due process.

I spent some time thinking about what my views were. I actually did a Google search. I went on Google and searched terms that were basically my views.

reason: Do you remember what they were? And was "safe search" on or off?

Amash: I don't remember, but F.A. Hayek popped up pretty quick. His Wikipedia article.

reason: What was it about Hayek's work that you find particularly interesting and relevant to your life as a legislator?

Amash: With Hayek the connection was pretty clear instantly. He believed really strongly in this spontaneous order, that things would come together on their own. Sort of like an evolutionary process. If you allow people to make decisions, they've got the knowledge because the decisions they're making are closest to them. Why should someone else make it from far away? And if you allow people to make their own decisions, you actually get good outcomes for society. That's something that I think about a lot as a legislator.

reason: Behind me on the wall there's a picture of Ayn Rand. How does she speak to your worldview?

Amash: Rand speaks in a sort of different way. I mean, it's more of an emotional appeal.

reason: I'm sure she would be very angry to hear that.

Amash: I know! But when I read some of her works, I find myself connecting to a lot of the characters, feeling the same frustrations they feel. And I think that's an important aspect of her work.

reason: When did you first encounter Rand?

Amash: Probably not until four or five years ago.

reason: So when you read a novel—Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead—you find yourselves hemmed in by the sort of over-reaching legislators of businesses?

Amash: Yeah, sure. And Rand's philosophy is very different from Hayek's. They come to many of the same conclusions about what kind of government you should have and what kind of social order you ultimately would get, but they think about it in very different ways. And I find that interesting. Bastiat is another person who appeals emotionally. He's very different from Hayek but adds something to the conversation.

reason: What's the spice that this Frenchman adds?

Amash: It's a nice French spice. It's short stories—almost parables—about folly, the folly of government and interventionism. And the folly of restricting free trade. I think that's beautiful to read. When you read Bastiat's work, people are really compelled to agree with him. It's hard to refute. I actually give away The Law when people stop by my office.

reason: You come from a part of the country, though, that is very steeped in protectionism. Not all parts of Michigan, but certainly the auto industry got fat off of protectionism. The industrial Midwest had a lot of tariffs against steel and various other things. Is it a hard sell in contemporary Michigan to say, "Look, guys, your economy has been tanking here for a long time and the answer is free trade," as opposed to "The answer is more protectionism"?

Amash: Well, it's always going to be a hard sell with some people, there's no doubt about that. If you're in a particular industry that's getting benefits from protectionism, then yeah, it's going to be a hard sell to you. But protectionism doesn't help people. It helps the people in those companies. And those people in those companies are a small percentage of the population. I'm concerned about the entire population in my district, the entire population in the state of Michigan, and the entire population in the United States. Everyone is a consumer. Only some people work in a particular industry. It doesn't make sense to have laws in place to protect a particular industry and then hurt 100 percent of the people.

reason: You also have a picture of Murray Rothbard. Rothbard is a big time anarcho-capitalist bomb-thrower. What do you find particularly compelling in his work?

Amash: He gives an interesting, more anarchist perspective. I'm not there; I fall more in the Hayek camp. I think it's important to understand his work, to understand his way of thinking. Because when you have discussions with those who are on the anarcho-capitalist side of things, it's important to understand where he's coming from and where they're coming from so you can make your arguments to persuade. 

I ultimately think there's got to be some government. I believe in a minimal state, and you're going to have different amounts of government at different levels. At the federal level, it should be very small in how it affects your daily life; it should just deal with things of national scope. And at closer levels—local government, or your neighborhood association—well, it might have a huge impact on your daily life, but it's certainly not going to protect you from an invasion.

reason: Should there be federal recognition of same-sex marriages?

Amash: I don't think there should be a federal definition of marriage. I think the federal government should just stay out of this. Really, marriage is a private contract that has nothing to do with government.

reason: How does that play into things like the tax cut? Should we get rid of any sort of "married" status in the filing of taxes?

Amash: Ultimately, yeah, I think so. We're not even close to that situation now, and it may be the case that marriage is so tied into the tax code and other benefits that what will ultimately happen is that gay people will be allowed to marry under some federalized version of marriage. But my preference would be that the federal government just stay out of it. And government just stay out of it in general. It's a private issue. It shouldn't be something that government deals with.

reason: What about abortion?

Amash: I'm pro-life. One hundred percent pro-life.

reason: Should the federal government ban all abortions? Or should that be left to localities or states?

Amash: When you have the case of abortion, you've got two people involved. You've got a baby and you've got a parent. I think it falls within the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

reason: Under current federal law, the constitutional reading is the state does not have an interest in a fetus or in a pregnancy for the first trimester. You would say that that is an error. How far back to the moment of conception should it go?

Amash: It's a tricky question, but I think that where we have it now is not correct. It should be closer to the point of conception. Whether it's instantly or the first three days, I think that's more sensible and that's what I think would be correct.

reason: You're an Orthodox Christian. Talk a little bit about how that informed your upbringing and how it informs your legislative profile, if it does.

Amash: There's a strong emphasis in our church on free will and on the mystery of the order of the world. I think that really fits in well with my views. I'm not sure that my political views were necessarily shaped by that, but they definitely do mesh together very well. I believe strongly in an idea of free will. People can make up their own mind about how they live their lives, and they will be judged accordingly.

reason: What are the most important issues that America has to grapple with in this next congressional term?

Amash: It's got to be debt, and civil liberties as well. Debt is number one. You have to get the debt under control.

reason: Does that mean not raising the debt limit at the end of March? Or brokering a tough deal to say, "We will have a short term increase but it's got to start coming down"?

Amash: I don't think you raise the debt limit unless you get major reforms to major programs. You've got to get the laws changed now. Some of those mandatory programs, it does take a while for the cost savings to kick in because of the way they work, but you've got to make the changes immediately.

reason: Talk a little bit about how your votes against things like the National Defense Reauthorization Act played out in your party and how you will continue to push for broader civil liberties going forward.

Amash: I think it's important that we do have someone who is pushing on this issue, because we haven't had good protection for civil liberties in either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party for many years. You have a few members, but not that many who are outspoken about it.

I think the Republican Party is actually coming along in the direction of my way of thinking, and of many young Republicans. Protecting civil liberties is one of the most important things our government should do. It's really the reason for the Founding, to protect civil liberties of Americans. So when you look at various issues like drones—I'm not against drones as an object. I don't object to the idea that there'd be drones. I think drones can be a useful weapon in war. But any use of drones should be authorized by Congress. It shouldn't just be an open-ended use of force against anyone that the president sees as a threat without any approval from Congress.

The same with the National Defense Authorization Act. There may be reasons to detain people, but it should be in the context of war. It can't be so broad that you can actually come into a home in the United States and grab an American citizen out of his home and detain him, not tell his family anything, and say, "Well, we think he might be associated with terrorists." That's the current law, and that's frightening. That's not what our Founders intended.

reason: Final question. You're the parent of three children. What would you say the odds are that they will come of age in a richer and freer America?

Amash: I have to say the odds are pretty high. It's still 90 percent odds, because I really do believe in the American people. My dad and mom came here as immigrants. They came here with nothing. There is a spirit here that is independent. It's libertarian in many ways, and it's in pretty much everyone I run into, regardless of their political affiliation. I think that it's still strong. And when I go to town halls I get a good reception. I think we can turn this thing around, but not with the current Congress or the current president. It's going to take some changes and some time.  

Advertisement

NEXT: Iran Hangs Two Men it Claims Were Spies for US, Israel

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT: Michael Moore on Real Time with Bill Maher Friday night: Republicans are “squealing dinosaurs.”

    There’s a lot of other good stuff from that episode, including a heated discussion between S.E. Cupp and Moore about guns. But honestly, I don’t understand why conservatives want to interrupt Michael Moore; his ignorance is so pure and hilarious, you should just let him have the floor indefinitely.

    1. my roomate’s step-aunt makes $69 hourly on the computer. She has been fired for 10 months but last month her paycheck was $14085 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more here… http://www.daz7.com

  2. “”””Amash: If there’s a threat, the president comes to Congress. Congress has to pass an authorization for war and then the president is authorized to do what he needs to do. But it should always go back to the people’s house.””‘

    Obviously some sort of fanatic. He acts like this is the law of the land and the President is required to be authorized by Congress to declare war.

    He does not realize that our god/king/president has the power to slay dragons where ever they are found throughout the world.

  3. OT: Someone in Florida won the $590 million Powerball.

    I hope it’s one of our Florida commentators, if it is top hats and monocles for everyone!

    1. If I had $590 million, I know I would hit Amazon and start ordering all the stuff I ever wanted. That would still leave me with $585 million to do whatever.

      1. You could buy Honduras and we will all move there to start Libertopia.

        1. Libertopia is more a state of mind than an actual place. In terms of an actual physical place, the closest we ever got towards Libertopia is EPCOT Center.

          1. Libertopia is more a state of mind than an actual place

            It is until you take your lotto winnings and buy Honduras. You should have some cash left over for beer and whatever once we all arrive.

          2. EPCOT does have that Ayn Rand quote on its wall.

            1. http://tinyurl.com/by2wots

              I went to EPCOT last year, and I recall seeing something like that.

              1. Did those guys have a state issued permit for those visions?

      2. Actually that would be about $385 million, Uncle Sam takes over 30% off the top before the state even cuts a check.

        It actually would be less than that. The $590 million is based on payments over thirty years. A one time payout is about half that – less Unclw Sam’s cut, that is.

        1. The cash option was $377 million. After a 39.6 top marinal rate (applied to everything above $400k, that leaves about $227 million. Some states require you to pay state income tax on the winnings, obviously not the case in FL, but some waive that for lotto winnings.

        2. Would you rather have a smaller amount up front, or have the annual check over 30 years?

          1. Smaller amount up front.

            I would invest the vast majority of it, and likely come out well ahead of the full amount over 30 years.

        3. According to the Florida Lottery’s website:

          Appropriate federal income taxes will be withheld from both Cash Option and annual payments at the time payments are made. If a Florida Lottery prizewinner is a U.S. citizen or resident alien with a Social Security number, the Internal Revenue Service requires the Florida Lottery to withhold 25 percent federal withholding tax from prizes greater than $5,000. If the prizewinner is a U.S. citizen or resident alien who does not have a Social Security number, the Florida Lottery is required to withhold 28 percent federal withholding tax from any prize of $600 or more. For nonresident aliens, the Florida Lottery is required to withhold 30 percent federal withholding tax from all prize amounts.

          Naturally, the actually amount of tax one ends up paying will come out when one files a return. I would imagine that many nonresident aliens simply don’t bother with that step, though they would be facing a small risk of trouble on any subsequent visits to the USofA.

  4. OT: So, Fred Armisen, Jason Sudeikis, and Bill Hader all said farewell to SNL last night. So, everything good about SNL over the last few years ended last night?

      1. I honestly haven’t seen an episode of SNL in about 10 years.

        1. I think the last time I watched an episode on purpose Kevin Nealon was still on.

      2. http://www.rollingstone.com/mo…..h-20130415

        The best Fred Armisen sketch and best sketch overall from the last season.

      3. Wait, I know who Hader is. He stuck celery up his ass and I laughed. I liked that movie. Shrug.

        1. Hader has done the best impersonations of corrupt Southern politicians since Chris Farley did Howell Helfin.

        2. I onlz know Hader from his work on TCM.

    1. Thank fucking god. Seriously, they have let certain fuckers stick around way too long. If you’ll notice, none of the good people ever stuck around for more than 5 years. Personally, if I ran SNL, I would basically kick people off after their sixth season automatically and get new blood in.

  5. Reason tried to get an interview with Rand, but he was too busy pandering to the SoCons, so they had to interview Justin instead.

    1. How do you know it’s pandering? Perhaps, deep down inside, Rand has a soft spot for “Uncle Gary“.

      1. It’s pandering, that much is not in doubt.

        I think he’s looking at getting those SoCon votes in the primaries and caucuses in 2016 to win the nomination.

        I don’t know if it’s going to work though, I think the SoCons need a really hardcore crazy like Sweater Vest to get them out to vote.

        1. They only went for the Santorum when he was the last not-Romney left.

          1. I thought that Ron stayed in until the end?

            1. Ron sabotaged himself at multiple points.

              1. Yes, because he didn’t pander enough, like Rand will do.

                1. It’s more about the newsletters and crap like that. And your whininess is approaching post-Romney loss Tulpa levels.

                  1. No it isn’t.

                  2. The thing that hurt Ron was his unwillingness to embrace the peurile “they hate us for our freedoms/kill all the ragheads” ideology that informed the senseless, counter-productive, and anti-liberty foreign policy that’s so popular with “limited government conservatives”.

                    1. Yep, evidenced by the booing of the Golden Rule.

                    2. the peurile “they hate us for our freedoms

                      That’s not peurile, that’s reality like it or not. If it doesn’t fit in with your preconceived notion, tough shit.

                    3. Cytotoxic: “That’s not peurile, that’s reality like it or not.”

                      I see that you hate us for our freedoms, as well.

                    4. Not really.

                      The thing that killed Ron was the anti-American tone that he took on foreign policy.

                      You can advocate the exact same policies from a pro-American / American-exceptionalist pov and get most socons to agree with you.

                    5. I think it was a combination of things. His tone on FP definitely hurt him (although I would describe it more as anti-US government than anti-American, although most people conflate those two things on foreign policy), but I also think the positions themselves are dealbreakers for a large number of conservatives. His views on certain social issues (drugs, his emphasis on abortion policy being decided by states) also didn’t help, and his age and perceived inferior “electability” also hurt him.

                    6. Saying that the Federal Government is a nasty piece of work when it comes to foreign relations is not “anti-American”.

                    7. Saying that the Federal Government is a nasty piece of work when it comes to foreign relations is not “anti-American”.

                      His ‘tone’ came across that way to a lot of republican voters because the criticism were similar to left-wing pro communist bs from the 70s & 80s.

                      The same non interventionist policies can be advocated from a pro American pov, by saying that X isn’t worth the cost, instead of saying that “it’s our fault”.

                    8. I think his “tone” came across that way because Republicans have a suboptimal capacity for understanding complex arguments regarding foreign situations, and therefore revert to the simplistic “Rah! Rah! USA!” mentality.

                    9. The same non interventionist policies can be advocated from a pro American pov, by saying that X isn’t worth the cost, instead of saying that “it’s our fault”.

                      Exactly. This is the difference between the paleocon/objectivist position, and the Rothbardian one: “we’re not obligated to help” with a side order of “and they’re too uncivilized for it to work, anyway” in the case of the paleocons, vs. “intervention is evil! Imperialism! Imperialism! Thou shalt not interfere in the internal affairs of other nation-states, even though we’re supposedly anarchists and don’t think nation-states should exist!”

                      And I’m glad to say that Amash sounds a lot less nutty than I would expect of someone with a picture of Rothbard on their wall.

                    10. Saying that the Federal Government is a nasty piece of work when it comes to foreign relations is not “anti-American”.

                      Only if you think the government and the country are the same things.

                      I dont.

                    11. Saying that the Federal Government is a nasty piece of work when it comes to foreign relations is not “anti-American”.

                      No, but it is pretty ridiculous unless by “nasty piece of work” you mean “isn’t non-interventionist like I think it should be.”

                      You want to see “nasty piece of work”? Look up some pictures of Grozny after Russia was finished with it in 2000. If things were as you claim they are, that’s what Kabul would have looked like by the end of 2001. (Note that I’m not talking about whether or not Russia had grievances against Chechnya, I’m talking about them not even trying to avoid killing, or destroying the property of, innocent people).

                  3. It’s more about the newsletters and crap like that. And your whininess is approaching post-Romney loss Tulpa levels

                    You are so full of shit.

                    1. Good thing he doesn’t live in Venezuela.

                    2. Sometimes I think Cyto is Tulpa.

                    3. Perfect and right on time. “Wah I can’t counter your reasoning, so ad hom!”

                    4. No, I’m not the one who tried (and pathetically failed) to make the case that Brazil is freer than America. You can’t objectively assess reality.

                    5. No, I’m not the one who tried (and pathetically failed) to make the case that Brazil is freer than America.

                      Whoever made this argument is an idiot.

                    6. He’s talking about me.

                      What I actually said, is that in some ways, I feel much freer in Brazil that I do here in the USA.

                      Now, explain how that makes me an idiot.

                      Also, remember the source. Cyto is the closest thing around here to Tulpa.

                    7. Hahaha. one time Tulpa got all Tulpacal on me because I said something like “unfortunately we live in a country where…” Naturally, he focused on the first part and not my actual point.

                    8. Some people cannot think outside of their little boxed in world, and have no intentions of learning how to.

                    9. What I actually said, is that in some ways, I feel much freer in Brazil that I do here in the USA.

                      In some ways I feel freer in Canada than in the US (smoking weed in front of cops was a plus). That hardly means that Canada is freer than the US.

                      My bad, Hyperion; I should have remembered the source.

                    10. Similar to my experience. In Brazil, you can walk down the streets drinking a beer, in front of cops, they won’t even look twice at you. They also pretty much ignore casual pot smokers. You just don’t have a sense there that you are going to be harassed by cops when you are minding your own biz, like you have here.

                      I never made the statement that Brazil is freer than the US overall. Also, that conversation was with Tulpa, not Cyto, he wasn’t even here posting during that thread. Which again, makes me suspicious that Cyto is Tulpa.

                    11. Duhn, duhn, DUUUUHNNN!!!

        2. Maybe he’s not trying to get their votes so much as he’s trying to not get their anti-votes ie mitigate the chance that the SoCons will vote against him. Remember, SoCons aren’t too bright. Easy to lead.

          1. As long as he can get them in the primaries and caucuses, it’s a moot point afterwards. I mean, who are the SoCons going to vote for against Rand in a POTUS race, Hillary? Lol, Hillary is like the anti-Christ to SoCons, they would vote for anyone against her, not necessarily for Rand, but the results will be the same.

            That being said, the GOP establishment will do anything and everything they can to keep Rand from getting the nomination. They do not want to run a winning candidate. It will be another blue state progressive lite, like Christie. Christie might win against Hillary, but I doubt it. It wouldn’t matter, because either way, it’s a win for Democrats.

      2. OH MY JESUS that guy actually got a ‘Rothbard Medal’ from the Mises Institute!?!?! Even I thought the MI wasn’t this crazy, though it seems highly appropriate to award a medal named after an anti-freedom collectivist posing as a man for liberty to an anti-freedom collectivist who half-poses as a man for liberty.

        1. Rothbard was an anti-freedom collectivist?

          1. An anti-state anti-freedom collectivist aka an Anarchist.

            1. So stupid

          2. Just ignore him like most of the rest of us do.

            1. The anarchists on even this board are not ‘most of the rest of us’.

              1. And you think bloodthirsty Randians are??

    1. Well, you didn’t lie.

      1. I can’t decide whether it’s really that bad, or just somewhat bad. That annoying background noise makes it hard to listen to.

        1. annoying background noise

          You mean the entire recording?

          1. House of Pain.

            Nuff said.

        2. I believe that background sound came from Cypress Hill?

          1. I thought it was House of Pain… Maybe I’m wrong, but it’s annoying as Hell.

              1. SF’d the link.

                I like that thrift shop song, it’s sort of catchy. Not what I would intentionally listen to, but it’s like one of those songs that sticks in your head even though you don’t want it to.

            1. Considering that Everlast was a member of House of Pain, I’m inclined to lean that way.

              1. Considering that Everlast was a member of House of Pain, I’m inclined to lean that way.

                HA! This entire time I was thinking Everlast was Everclear. Any other Ever____ musicians?

                1. Any other Ever____ musicians?

                  Phil and Don Everly.

            2. House of Pain and Cypress Hill used the same DJ, if I recall correctly.

      1. ^^^Sans the annoying “House of Pain” squeal, for all you whiners out there.

      2. Better than the one above, but not much.

    2. A jazzy cover of I Can See Clearly Now

      I first heard this version while working at Jos. A Bank last summer.

    3. And here’s the inevitable cover of Baker Street.

      This cover would be a lot better, had the artist actually sang the second verse, rather than sing the first verse twice.

    4. IZ’s cover of Somewhere Over the Rainbow

      I think this is the version at the end of 50 First Dates, which was surprisingly not that bad.

    5. Hayseed Dixie cover of Walk This Way.

      Very countrified.

    1. Between Christopher Hitchens’ death and elevator-gate, the atheist/skeptic movement of the mid to late 00s is dead. Congratulations.

      1. Well someone should tell them.

        1. Well, no one could write about atheism as well as Hitchens. I would have loved to read about his thoughts on “elevator-gate.”

          1. Wow, I had never heard of that until now.

            So in effect, my fluff filter had apparently been working flawlessly, and you just went and ruined it!

            1. here’s a great detailed account of everything that went down:

              http://freethoughtkampala.word…..vatorgate/

              1. That Greg Laden is a real winner.

                So I learned this trick. Cross the street about a block back and “pass” the lady that way. Same with a potential head-on encounter. If you see a woman walking towards you in the middle of the night on a lonely urban street, my practice in those days was to cross the street to not stress her out.

          2. The elevator thing was weird. The initial reaction to her comment was way overboard, and Dawkins made a complete ass out of himself. But then some of the feminist/skeptics went completely overboard in response to those reactions and tried to start a witchhunt.

            1. What was the initial reaction? I only read about it after things were memory holed.
              My understanding is that there were over the top you tube comments(hope you die, get raped etc) and honest criticism(stef mcgraw’s vid for one) in reaction to the ‘don’t do that/elevatorgate’ video by Watson. Then Watson lumped McGraw in with the ‘hope you get raped’ crowd during a speech at some conference. Which pissed people off and really got the train rolling.

              1. Funny, I never heard of Stef McGraw, but her original response to Watson is (I think) worth reading:

                http://www.unifreethought.com/…..f-stef-32/

                1. Funny, I never heard of Stef McGraw, but her original response to Watson is (I think) worth reading:

                  http://www.unifreethought.com/…..f-stef-32/

                  Fail on my part. wasn’t able to find that. Forget my memory hole remark.

                  It is worth reading.

            2. Yeah, Watson’s initial post on the subject was a little whiney, but whatever. Dawkins (who’s been showing his age recently) unfortunately made a mountain our of a mole hill, and everything went crazy.

              The Freethoughtsblog crowd really escalated things when one of them brought to attention a quote by Penn Jillette that was more out of context than anything. Pretty soon, the supposed misogyny in the skeptics/atheist movement was being linked to libertarian members of the movement.

              1. Yeah, I forget all the details, but the original video of Watson saying the elevator conduct was creepy didn’t seem like a big deal to me, and I don’t think she was trying to make it a big deal. It felt more like she was just trying to give advice. The way she described the conduct did seem a tad creepy to me. I see the point McGraw’s making though.

                1. Yeah, I forget all the details, but the original video of Watson saying the elevator conduct was creepy didn’t seem like a big deal to me, and I don’t think she was trying to make it a big deal. It felt more like she was just trying to give advice. The way she described the conduct did seem a tad creepy to me. I see the point McGraw’s making though.

                  Well that seems reasonable. I doubt either side will ever leave it at that though.

                  1. Pretty soon, we’ll have the “Protestathiest Reformation” and the irreligious wars will rage for years.

      2. The whole notion of a ‘skeptic movement’ is unworkable. Everybody wants to be a ‘skeptic’ including those with notion we should be most skeptical of. It’s almost like forming a ‘kindness movement’.

        1. I don’t know. I really enjoyed all the James Randi stuff I could find. BUt other than him I was rather disappointed by skeptics. At least current ones online I came across.

          1. Sagan, Randi, Hitchens. The rest of those assholes can go sit on a sharp stick.

    2. Meh. This is nothing compared to the flame wars in which I’ve been involved over D&D 4E.

      1. Although, I would find it poetic justice if no guy ever asked Watson out ever again (assuming she’s not a lesbian, of course).

        1. I had an extra “ever”, so I went ahead and threw it in there.

      2. They lost me at the money-grab that was 2E. I’d probably score in the high-90’s on the D&D purity test.

        1. Now you can buy materials from each edition on the WotC website.

  6. Amash: Yeah, I had a natural sympathy toward the defense side. I believe strongly in protecting people’s constitutional rights and making sure they get due process.

    I had a friend who got his J.D. I asked him once what he would do if he had a client that admitted to murdering someone. He said he would do everything he could to get the guy acquitted, because the government sets rules for itself, and his job would be to make sure that the government follows its own rules.

    1. his job would be to make sure that the government follows its own rules

      Good luck with that, it’s an admirable task, but a monumental one. Laws are for us little peons, not for our elected betters.

      1. From my dealings with lawyers, at a certain point the whole notion of a acquittal is usually not that likely. At that point it’s a matter of getting the verdict to be for the least serious offense and the minimum sentence possible. In murder cases it’s mostly a matter of simply keeping their clients off death row. they’ll go to almost any lengths to achieve that.

  7. This is all good, but Amash’s willingness to sacrifice the rights of a mother for the sake of a ball of undifferentiated cells is horrifying.

    1. Sad, pathetic view of human life. Are you pro-your life?

      1. Blinkered, fetishistic view of human life.

        1. Cyto will be pleased when Obama pardons Kermit Gosnell and appoints him Surgeon General.

          1. Gosnell was doing abortions well past the “undifferentiated cells” stage, where it’s much harder to make decide things based on libertarian principles. From a property-rights standpoint, an abortion is an eviction — the fetus is in the woman’s womb, which is her property, and she has the right to force it to leave, even if it cannot survive outside the womb, just as she would have the right to evict someone from her house even if there was a blizzard outside.

            In the case of abortions once the fetus is viable outside the womb, however, the question changes from “does the woman have the right to evict the fetus from her womb, despite fatal consequences to it?” to “does the woman have the right as such to kill the fetus?” By the house analogy, it’s as if she’s evicting an unwanted visitor into non-dangerous weather, and then shooting him in the head as he’s walking out the door.

      2. Cyto’s consistently pro-death.

    1. The girl was one of the several daughters of a man in his late 30s. For an unknown reason he gave his daughter to the Mullah of their village for a big amount of money. It is also common in Afghanistan’s rural areas or 3rd level provinces/cities to marry young girls to old men, and trading their daughters for their debts or other items.

      The mullah is in his late 50s and is the mosque guy of the village where this incident happened.

      1. For an unknown reason he gave his daughter to the Mullah of their village for a big amount of money.

        Umm. I’ll hazard a guess. Daughters cost money to feed and dower. Dirt farmers ain’t got none. The choice was let her starve the next time the crop fails or sell her.

    2. “If you can’t fit, no problem! Get a knife!”

      *shudders*

    3. Put a bullet in the guy’s crotch…and the father of the girl, and the guy who married them. Ah, fuck it, just shoot everyone who attended the wedding.

      1. Ah, fuck it, just shoot everyone who attended the wedding.

        Just tell Obama. I hear he’s pretty good at fucking up Muslim weddings.

        1. But…but…he’s a Mooslim himself!!

  8. Justin Amash
    I voted no on the Democrats’ motion to recommit (return to committee) H R 807, Full Faith and Credit Act. The motion instructs the Committee on Ways and Means to amend the bill to prohibit it from going into effect if it would result in the Department of the Treasury’s failing to pay Medicare benefits or veterans benefits, or to provide funds for disaster relief, among other things. Actually, because the bill allows Treasury to continue incurring debt beyond the statutory debt limit to pay two large (and growing) drivers of the debt, Treasury will have *more* funds available than it otherwise would to fund all other government programs. Democrats should love this bill (if they took time to read the Committee’s amended version), but this is about politics, not about what the bill actually does. This is a partisan procedural motion, not an actual amendment. It failed 200-227.

    From his facebook page. He puts up his reason for each vote he makes.

    1. Far better than most politicians who don’t even want you to know that they voted, or how, and that there even was a vote.

      In our current congress, Amash is the best there is, along with a handful of others that can be counted on the fingers of one hand, with leftover fingers.

  9. This is the most worstest Sunday afternoon of posting, ever, on H&R.

    1. x games are on….

    2. Are you talking about the articles themselves? Or the lack of responses by the peanut gallery? Or the subpar nature of the responses?

      What do you mean?

      1. No one is here. Well, ok, there are a few of us occasionally posting. But overall, it’s quite dead around here today.

        1. I generally try to avoid weekend threads, they are usually full of crazy.

          1. I’m so happy you’re my best friend and I love Lisa so much.

          2. I generally try to avoid weekend threads, they are usually full of crazy.

            What are you talking about? I’ve been here all day, and I haven’t seen much….oh…

          3. “I generally try to avoid weekend threads, they are usually full of crazy.”

            RBS, you should pay closer attention on weekdays.

        2. It’s so popular nobody comes anymore.

      2. All of the above? Well that and the wife had to work today.

        And because this Sunday sucks, I present you with Leprous.

        Leprous hails from the lively avant-garde metal scene from Norway. “Forced Entry” is from his masterpiece album Bilateral.

    3. Anyway how’s your sex life?

    4. Someone says that every Sunday afternoon.

      1. It was my turn.

  10. I BRING TO DER WARULD DISORDER!

  11. I BRING TO DER WARULD DISORDER!

  12. I think my statement about this being the most worstest Sunday here at H&R was a sort of prophecy.

    Not only is Cyto here in full Tulpa mode, but now Mary is back also.

    The only thing that could make it worse, is if Tulpa and Tony now show up at the same time.

    1. GET OUT! GET OUTTA MY LIFE!

  13. “Adding insult to injury, the party establishment claimed that the rebuke wasn’t ideological; that it had more to do with what Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) termed “the asshole factor.”

    I wasnt sure what that meant, so I looked up Westmoreland’s statement. Apparently they claim the guys they removed from the committees dont play well with others. Hmmmm. Bullshit.

    They removed fiscal conservatives, constitutional sticklers, from committees because in practice the republican establishment is not substantially different from the democrats. I remember this happening right after the kerfluffle here at the republican convention in Shreveport. The Ron Paul supporters were rebuffed, in spite of winning a majority of votes. Two were even hauled off to jail for not towing the republican lion.

    1. Rand is going to get the exact same treatment, despite his pandering efforts.

    2. Is it “tow the lion” or “toe the line”?

        1. Ohhhh its toe the lion. I always get that wrong.

        2. No. Here it is tow the lion. The actual phrase is “toe the line” and refers to prize fights when rounds were counted by falls and each man had a set amount of time to get back to his line lest the fight be over. There’s a good description in Tai Pan of such a fight. But its funnier to just say “tow the lion” and not fight over tow v. toe.

          1. Well, then; from this point forth, I will tow the lion.

  14. This is the worst chat room EVER.

    1. At least it’s free.

  15. Can one of you please identify which logical fallacy this quintessential NPR fucktard just used:

    In 1776, the word “liberal” meant someone who believed in democracy. A “conservative” was someone who believed in the monarchy. The underlying root of conservatism is that America should be ruled by a Christian king, “as God intended it.” In other words, the core conservative belief is that America should be run by a dictator with the backing of the Christian church. Liberal means democracy. Conservative means dictatorship.

    http://www.npr.org/2013/05/19/…..d-them-too

      1. Once it has been decided what is to count as a logical fallacy, the question remains as to how the various fallacies are to be categorised. The most common classification of fallacies groups fallacies of relevance, of ambiguity, and of presumption.
        Arguments that commit fallacies of relevance rely on premises that aren’t relevant to the truth of the conclusion. The various irrelevant appeals are all fallacies of relevance, as are ad hominems.
        Arguments that commit fallacies of ambiguity, such as equivocation or the straw man fallacy, manipulate language in misleading ways.
        Arguments that commit fallacies of presumption contain false premises, and so fail to establish their conclusion. For example, arguments based on a false dilemma or circular arguments both commit fallacies of presumption.

    1. Don’t know the logical fallacy, but he is making a whole load of shit up.

      1. You expected anything less from the NPR comment boards? They’re maybe one notch above the commenters on Reddit.

      1. It was in the comments; the apparatchiks over at NPR are indeed dense but not nearly as shitbrained as the rabble-rousers on the comment boards. I was thinking it was more along the lines of non-sequitur.

        1. Yeah,

          The political positions of people that called themselves conservative or liberal in 1776 do not reflect the political positions of people in 2013 using the same labels.

          Even if you go with the non political definition of conservative as one resistant to change, today’s conservatives would want to retain the current structure of government.

          Political labels in the US today are completely irrational, disconnected from any traditional meaning of the words used in those labels.

    2. I’m pretty sure a “conservative” in 1776 America would have meant someone who opposed the revolution and stayed loyal to the rather liberal British monarchy.

      1. Those were called “loyalists”.

    3. In modern political parlance, “conservatism” in the U.S. of A. is an ideology that seeks to “conserve” the principles of the Founding Fathers–limited government, expanded individual liberty.

      The modern US “Liberal” is more closely aligned, ideologically, with those ancient “conservatives” that wanted a powerful central government.

      1. “Conservative”, “Liberal”, “Right” and “Left” have always been nebulous relative terms with no fixed meaning.

        1. Probably the best explanation I’ve seen of the different broad political ideologies, including the ones that overlap with economic ideologies (such as socialism) is, weirdly enough, from TV Tropes:

          http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw…..Ideologies

          These are the basic political ideologies that are prevalent in contemporary times. Of course, these are largely simplified, and most people don’t purely adhere to one ideology, but adopt concepts from multiple ideologies. Still, most political works can be broadly defined as falling into one of the following categories.

          Please note, the following categories are ideological. Several groups running in Real Life elections often use these terms, but to refer to their political bloc rather than as an indicator of their actual ideological leanings. For instance, the contemporary United States meaning of “liberal” does not refer to “liberalism” here, for the most part. Ditto for “conservative.”

          1. Why did the post I responded to just disappear on me?

      2. Notice that the article attempts to take blame off of the IRS and captain shitweasel by claiming liberal groups were targeted also…in spite of the fact that the IRS admitted that that was not the case and that they specifically targeted conservative organizations.

        So, the left will deny guilt even when the guilty party admits their guilt. Wow.

    4. I tried Otis, but I got caught up in the comments there and now my head hurts. Jesus fuckin’ christ what a bunch of retards.

      1. Kochtopus!

      2. Remember, ads on TV are such a grave threat to America that we need to censor them with pants-wetting terror!

  16. What is reasonable? No, I’m being serious…

    1. It’s an addon for Chrome only that allows you to visually remove certain posters. You won’t see their posts. I don’t use it myself (I use Firefox), but some people like not having to see certain posters here.

      It was apparently specifically designed for Reason.com.

      1. It’s an addon for Chrome only that allows you to visually remove certain posters.

        It also makes it really easy for you to use blockquotes, bold words, italicize, create strikethroughs, or SF your links.

        1. For links I just copy the formula from the wcschools website. Blockquote is easy enough to remember, though.

          1. Yeah, but it’s really simple to just click the button above your comment box. It’s faster than typing something out or going to another website.

            LOOK HOW FAST I AM!

            1. Yeah, but I use Firefox, Reasonable isn’t available to me.

  17. Oh, and would someone point out to the progressives, and to their king, the shitweasel extraordinaire, that we dont have a fucking democracy. We have a republic.

    I know, they will say they mean representative democracy, but that isnt what they mean at all.

    1. Even if we don’t have a republic, we sure as shit don’t have democracy. The civil service is barely accountable to the political aspects of government, which are the only vaguely democratic part.

  18. We wouldn’t be having to deal with all this nonsense were we still under the Articles of Confederation.

  19. reason: I assume that you think that Americans should be able to trade freely with Cuba?

    Amash: Yeah.

    A thousand times this.

  20. When you read Bastiat’s work, people are really compelled to agree with him. It’s hard to refute. I actually give away The Law when people stop by my office.

    Bastiat rocks.

    Hayek raps.

    1. The link was SugarFreed. So much for your so-called free market!

      1. Thanx. I’ve spent all day trying to figure out what Hyperion meant by “SF’d” in his 3:12pm post

        1. For future reference, NS or Nutrasweeted means the same thing.

  21. From Amash’s Facebook page:

    Justin Amash
    I voted no on approving the Journal of the previous session day. I vote no when this is not handled by voice vote, because we are never given adequate time to review the Journal. Generally, the point of a Journal vote is to extend the current vote series by five minutes (so that leadership can whip us on an upcoming vote). Because a Journal vote is legislatively inconsequential, many Representatives oppose their own party on these votes to improve their independence rating. I need no such help with my independence rating, but I am still opposed. It was approved 264-140-1.

    1. I love that he gives detailed explanations of his votes on his FB page.

      I can’t imagine this is common (it should be)–I know my Rep. does not.

      1. I love that he gives detailed explanations of his votes on his FB page.

        I can’t imagine this is common

        It’s not. He’s the only one who does it.

        Also, this

        Because a Journal vote is legislatively inconsequential, many Representatives oppose their own party on these votes to improve their independence rating. I need no such help with my independence rating, but I am still opposed.

        is awesome.

        1. Bismark was wrong; watching sausage being made is fascinating.

  22. “An Everson man who impregnated a preteen girl and forced her to have an abortion must serve a six-year prison sentence, then leave the country….

    “He brought the girl to a Planned Parenthood clinic in August 2012. She told staff members that her 14-year-old boyfriend impregnated her, but she couldn’t give the boy’s name or address.”

    Planned Parenthood did the abortion anyway.

    http://www.bellinghamherald.co…..n-for.html

    1. The girl’s family refused to cooperate with prosecutors, according to a Department of Corrections report.

      Interesting, I’m guessing they wanted to move on from the matter?

      Separately, is PP not supposed to perform abortions if the female cannot positively identify the father?

      1. PP isn’t supposed to be complicit in statutory rape. They aren’t supposed to do stuff like this:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA_a5kmPICQ

        1. So you’re saying that’s what happened here?

          She was honest and they covered it up?

          1. No – she gave a very sketchy story, according to the article.

            It’s as if someone goes up to the PP staff and asks them to deliver a package for them. They don’t ask, don’t tell what’s in the package, which turns out to be stolen goods. But gosh, they never opened the package, so how could they have known?!?!?

            1. I don’t really think it’s that sketchy that she refused to identify him.

              I am sure she isn’t the first person to that. I would actually imagine that most 14 year old girls getting abortions would not want to identify the fathers.

              1. “If I do this for him, he’ll love me forever.”

                Meanwhile, he’s out knocking up her best friend.

    2. “He brought the girl to a Planned Parenthood clinic in August 2012. She told staff members that her 14-year-old boyfriend impregnated her, but she couldn’t give the boy’s name or address.”

      Wait, I think I’ve seen that movie…

    3. If it’s illegal to be up a 14-year-old’s hooha even with her legally useless “consent”, why aren’t the Planned Parenthood folks in jail for statutory rape? I mean, if that dude had stuck a dildo in her instead of a penis, and there was proof, he would still be heading to jail.

      1. …you realize that there are different rules for medical care, yeah?

        Or this is just some D- trolling.

  23. House “liberty movement,” responded by leading a failed

  24. Cheap GHD Hair Straighteners with low price at my Cheap GHD Straighteners UK.

    http://www.ghdukcheap.com

  25. immigrants, Amash has made a name for himself as a non-interventionist

  26. Add hot water, after the complete color change, Cute Panda photo is clearly displayed. After the cup is cooled, it is restored.

  27. Custom Magic mugs, Personalized magic mug, Custom heat sensitive mug, Customized personalized coffee mugs, Personalized color changing mug

  28. Personalized magic mug, add hot water above 140 ?. You can show your pictures, create more surprises and moved.

  29. Jmisale Trendy Clothes – Cheap Online Shopping Websites. Discount Clothing for Men, Women and Kids. Cheap Branded Clothes Wholesale, Jmisale.com is your best choose.

  30. Personalized Computer Mouse Pads use 3MM thicker handling, the operation feel more soft and comfortable, and to ensure that the mouse pad durable, but also effectively reduce the long-term operation to bring the hand fatigue.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.