Rand Paul

Rand Paul to Introduce Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013


Gage Skidmore

In the wake of reports that the NSA has collected millions of phone records from Verizon customers, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced today that he will introduce the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013 tomorrow, Friday, June 7. Here's the release from Paul's office: 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul today announced he will introduce the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013, which ensures the Constitutional protections of the Fourth Amendment are not violated by any government entity.

"The revelation that the NSA has secretly seized the call records of millions of Americans, without probable cause, represents an outrageous abuse of power and a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. I have long argued that Congress must do more to restrict the Executive's expansive law enforcement powers to seize private records of law-abiding Americans that are held by a third-party," Sen. Paul said. "When the Senate rushed through a last-minute extension of the FISA Amendments Act late last year, I insisted on a vote on my amendment (SA 3436) to require stronger protections on business records and prohibiting the kind of data-mining this case has revealed. Just last month, I introduced S.1037, the Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act, which would provide exactly the kind of protections that, if enacted, could have prevented these abuses and stopped these increasingly frequent violations of every American's constitutional rights. 

"The bill restores our Constitutional rights and declares that the Fourth Amendment shall not be construed to allow any agency of the United States government to search the phone records of Americans without a warrant based on probable cause."

Click HERE to view the text of this legislation, which will be introduced when the Senate returns to session on Friday, June 7.

NEXT: New York Court Approves NYC Taxi Expansion Plans

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. Apparently Rep. Louie Gohmert said today: “We’ve all got an Obama phone now.”

    1. Where were Rep. Gohmert and Sen. Paul when Bush was in office doing these exact same thing????

      The only reason they’re speaking up now is because they.are.racist.

      Wake up America, it’s time to round up all these racist Christfags and put them where they belong.

      1. I knew it! The race card! Any time Obummer gets in trouble. Pathetic.

      2. Well, Senator Paul wasn’t in the Senate yet, but I’m pretty sure he was opposing most of Bush’s policies, since he was helping Ron Paul run for President.

      3. How bad is it that I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not?

      4. How bad is it that I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not?

      5. The Paul’s have both been consistent in their opposition to these things, even under the Bush Administration. Ron Paul adamantly opposed the Patriot Act and still does. Rand wasn’t even in office during the Bush years so your accusations of racism or a double standard against Rand Paul is entirely misinformed and unwarranted. Gohmert on the other hand…

      6. Some might call you Tim, but most call you stupid.

  2. The fact that we need an act to restore Constitutionally ‘protected’ rights is a damning indictment on our system of government.

    1. Amen to that.

    2. well, it IS called the FAP Act…

      get it…

    3. Yeah, when was the 4th Amendment repealed, anyway?

      1. When the Patriot Act was signed into law.

  3. It really sucks that we’re at the point where a bill has to be written that says, “Hey Government, obey the 4th Amendment to the Bill of Rights.”

  4. I’m enjoying Paul’s grandstanding. This is great stuff. And the government keeps serving him up more opportunities to impress people.

    1. Sadly, as the comments above have noted it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

      It shouldn’t be this easy.

      1. Yes, but so few have done it before, and I’m not sure any have gotten this kind of attention.

    2. So how many liberals in the media and Congress will get behind him on this?

      I doubt many o f them would ever give Rand Paul credit for standing up to the Obama administration on anything.

      1. I bet you $100 that the usual suspects will denounce him for obstructing the president and being a racist. I dare you to go read comments on this at HuffPost or similar sites.

        1. Challenge accepted. I shall return.

          1. No, don’t go without a buddy!

            1. He’ll never survive the levels of stupid in such a flimsy craft. You have to accept that he’s gone, PL.


              2. our numbers dwindle like an hourglass losing the sands of time. Soon there will only be one.

              3. He was always reckless and foolish. Especially if he thought I would actually pay up.

                1. Especially if he thought I would actually pay up.

                  Anarchists are always welchers. I live, albeit with a slightly reduced IQ.

                  1. Anarchists are always welchers. I live, albeit with a slightly reduced IQ.

                    Only slightly reduced? They must be slipping, or you have unnaturally strong resistnace to derp. Most people who read Huff-Po comments end up drooling on the floor and fingerpainting with their own feces for at least a couple of weeks.

                    1. Only slightly reduced? They must be slipping

                      Surprisingly, the majority of the comments are anti-administration on this one, even on balloon-juice. There are always the diehards, but I think the administration is starting to lose the PR battle.

                    2. Even the Democratic Underground is showing signs of fractures in the base:

                      I voted for Obama so he would cut out this steer manure and I am still waiting for him to cut out this steer manure. As one who who was outraged when this was started by Mr. Bush, why should I not be outraged when an elected President does it, too? It’s an outrageous violation of the fourth amendment. Why should I, or even you, expect it to continue?

                      Supporting something like fascism because the something-like-a-fascist is a Democrat instead of a Republican is a rather poor excuse.

                    3. Good, though one must laugh at “elected president.” Ye gods, get over yourselves.

                    4. They’ll never let that go. It’ll be STOLEN ELEKSHUN!!!1!!! until the end of time.

                    5. I listened to a moron on the radio yesterday seriously making the argument that Reagan stole both of his elections as well, and how much better off we’d be if Jimmy Carter had served a second term. I wondered if he fell over laughing during the commercials, but I’m afraid that he MIGHT have actually meant it.

                      If they haven’t given up on reagan, no way they’re ever going to let Bush go, no matter how horrible the (D) in office.

                    6. It’s Rutherford B. Hayes’ fault!

                    7. It’s odd, but as bad as the Republicans are, few electoral fraud cases seem to involve them. I guess when they win over the unions, that will change.

                    8. My first reaction was this.

                    9. Good, though one must laugh at “elected president.” Ye gods, get over yourselves.

                      But, but the rethugs were ahead by less than a thousand votes in Florida the third and last time we demanded a recount. They stole the election!

                    10. steer manure

                      Do gelded animals produce different excrement?

                    11. From the home page:

                      America’s Cowboy Days Are Over

                      Kirk Douglas


                      We have become a cowboy country with too many guns. I am 96 years old. I have many grandchildren. I would hate to leave them a world where guns are easily accessible.

                      Never liked him in anything. Gene pool so weak and repulsive his son barely survived licking a pussy.

                    12. The dude is 94 and can barely talk because he suffered a stroke a few years back. I’d be very surprised if he actually wrote that, kind of like whenever Gabby Giffords does an op-ed.

                    13. Still, my hate is untainted. Bad things happen to people I hate, too. Actually, bad thing tends to happen to people who get on my radar for the wrong reasons. One guy threatened me many years ago for the simple fact that I dated his girlfriend and she was using him to get back at me for dumping her. A few weeks later after issuing the verbal threat, he burnt his own face off in a gasoline accident (he tried to clear brush from his father’s land by using gasoline — serious dumb ass). I was still mulling what I could do to get rid of him but not have the action point back to me when by a stroke of luck I didn’t have to do anything!

                    14. Dammit, my editing mistakes read like Freudian slips these days.

                      hat I could do to get rid of him neutralize his threat

                      Really, that is what I thought I wrote.

                    15. “Still, my hate is untainted”

                      and my taint is unhated.

                    16. and my taint is unhated.


                    17. I’m not going there. I may not like his politics, but I liked him in a few movies. Including a couple of Kubrick films–Spartacus and Paths of Glory.

                    18. Just to clear, I hate him because he was a shitty, overrated actor who made Gerald Butler look subtle in comparison. Has nothing to do with his politics.

                    19. And I like his deformity of a son in Romancing the Stone.

                    20. liked

                    21. Paths was a damn good film, and the elder Douglas certainly held his own.

                      It is interesting seeing a man who kind of earned his spurs as a “man’s man” type actor who has that attitude about firearms.. But certainly not odd for Hollywood, and I can see where fear and proximity become more pressing to those urbanites, though it is still no bloody excuse for restricting the Bill of Rights.

                  2. That’s “welshers”, Scruffy. It’s an ethnic slur against the people of Wales.

                  3. That’s “welshers”, Scruffy. It’s an ethnic slur against the people of Wales.

                    1. Squirrel attack!

                  4. I’ve never known any anarchist to be a welcher. Since we anarchists promote the idea that voluntary cooperation is all that is needed to live together amicably, we usually go out of our way to live up to our agreements.

                2. But he died doing what he loved!

        2. Absolutely. It’s been a little odd that they haven’t hit him harder with such things recently, but I figure they’re saving up for the presidential election. Which starts in a couple of weeks.

        3. No! It is not acceptable. It was one thing when it was a good ole boy like Bush doing it. Him we could trust. But I will not tolerate this liberal commie socialist muslim black theology christian corporate bail out king get away with the exact same. Gawd bless Merica!

          Subtle sarcasm

          1. A top post:

            This is classified information that once again, has been leaked by someone in Congress to the news media.
            Remember back in 2006 when Bush started his “eavesdropping” program on Americans and did it by Executive Order? Where was the outrage from the Republicans then?
            This is in the Patriot Act and has been there for many years and been extended by Congress many times. A judge in NW FL that was appointed by Reagan signed the FISA court order.
            Yet, Republicans today act like this President is the one that initiated the Patriot Act and is personally responsible. This was all started by Bush and the Republicans, but they only get outraged when a report comes out that a Democratic President is using the same laws passed by Congress.
            Hypocrisy much? Oh yeah!

            1. So long as the other TEAM is doing it to, our conscience is clear!

              Even though we nominated a senator who supported both the Patriot Act and the Iraqis Invasion (with his vote, if not his rhetoric) in 2004 to go up against Bush Hitler, ridiculed Paul on the right and Kucinich on the left, hate Greenwald for pointing out our flaws, our intentions have always been so much better.

            2. Actually no, I am a life-long Republican and I opposed the Patriot Act. Get the facts straight and don’t lump us all into one barrel!

        4. Once again an old story is being peddled and amplified for maximum outrage.
          Sound familar?

          Anyone care to wager which party the individual who ‘leaked’ this old news to the Guardian identifies with?

          Fox already has egg on its face for playing dumb – how’s that archival search coming along for the registered mail from DOJ? Haven’t heard much recently – must be a lot of boxes to sift through.

          The gamble here was that the Guardian would be less likely to know it was being sold leftover U.S. news.

        5. We would all prefer to live in a world where this was not possible nor deemed to be necessary if some circumstances, but we don’t live in that world.

          Note: This guy has 1441 fans

        6. I can feel my brain rotting

        7. POLITICAL PUNDIT?535 Fans
          This “scandal” is just a politically motivated distraction that mesmerizes low-information voters who don’t understand how government works.

          There is no conflict between what candidate Obama said and the actions of the Obama administration. Government whistleblowers should be encouraged to reveal government misconduct, no question. However, whistleblowers are not be given carte blanche to print classified government secrets, just for to get a scoop, when there is no hint of wrongdoing. That is the problem with this whole “scandal”. There is no suggestion that the information was designed to ferret out government corruption. Quite the contrary, the story enabled a government agent to do wrong by illegally revealing classified information for no legitimate purpose. This is exactly the kind of activity that the government should prosecute and that the press should be fearful of publishing.

          1. What?

          2. There’s more:

            If the press followed the law and only printed classified information when government wrongdoing was at issue, Valerie Plame and her operatives would not have been exposed. The press needs to start to self-regulate, and follow the law by not aiding and abetting the dissemination of classified information by persons who are breaking the law (absent government corruption). And if the press won’t self-regulate, the government is obligated prosecute members of the press, just as it is obligated to prosecute ordinary citizens. This is a non-issue. No responsible member of the press should have a problem with limiting the release of classified information to that which involves government corruption. If it is a problem, they need to get another job.

            Similarly, the Verison phone number collection story is just a shiny bauble to distract people who don’t understand what information is protected by the right of privacy. Telephone numbers are not in and of themselves protected by the right of privacy, nor is the fact that a person is calling a particular number private information (for example the fact of an attorney-client call is not confidential, but the contents of the call is). What is private is the statements made in the telephone call. That is why the court would issue a warrant to collect the numbers. There was no improper snooping going on because telephone numbers are freely disseminated information obtained pursuant to a court order.

            1. Almost done, here’s the kicker:

              So, yes, bash the President and Democrats when they do not live up to their ideals, but at least find something valid to bash them for. These “scandals” are pure B.S. to distract the press from writing about the real scandal which is the revelation that the entire Republican deficit reduction program has been revealed to be built on a foundation of lies by professors who have been completely discredited. That is the real story, but the press are busy talking about B.S.

              We are doomed.

              1. The fuck we are. Time to fight back. Jeeves, bring me the Pen of Contempt.

                1. Very good sir. But may I venture to add, sir, that that ascot does not become you?

                  1. [Waves at majordomo to thrash CN, thrash him thoroughly.]

                    1. Master Wooster would never have ventured to have me thrashed so thoroughly, sir. I must say, I rather liked it.

                    2. It’s hard to get good help these days. Very well, release the hounds.

              2. Great FSM, how did you have the stomach to wade through that crap.

                It will be worth saving, however, to throw back at them when they bitch about the loss of rights during the Huckabee/Santorum* administration beginning in 2017.

                *Yeah, I am really, really pessimistic.

                1. It’ll never happen.

                  Even if the dumbass Republican base was dumb enough to nominate that ticket it wouldn’t win against any Democrat (and I freely admit they could be that dumb). The fact is that the country is very steadily becoming more socially liberal and less religious. The numbers of “independent” voters who would reactively vote against a candidate based on their perceived religious fundamentalism regardless of any other factors has grown so large that a Santorum/Huckabee type could never win a general election.

                  1. If the misery index hits 15% or more (a distinct possibility) a Jesus Christ/George Washington Team Blue ticket wouldn’t even be able to stop a Nixon/GWB GOP ticket.

          3. What a fucking sad sack that person is.

            Quite the contrary, the story enabled a government agent to do wrong by illegally revealing classified information for no legitimate purpose.

            Gee, you mean like leaking details of the Bin Laden raid to Hollywood supporters just so they could make movie?

            1. I can’t believe that Panetta did that. Holy shit–how low can they go?

              1. “I can’t believe that Panetta did that. Holy shit–how low can they go?”

                According to the huff-po comments above, they’ve got miles of clear air under ’em.

        8. From the intelligence repository known as balloon-juice

          It was legal, it’s routine and it’s been done since 2006. The only reason it is news now is that someone leaked classified information again. I’d bet money it is a Republican on one of the Intelligence Committees or their staff. The GOP feigning outrage over this are absurd. They’ve known about it for years.

          1. And, for all the hand wringing, this still isn’t as bad as Bush. These are call records- who talked to whom- while the NSA under Bush was actually wiretapping. Doesn’t make it right, but it ought to kill the “Obama is worse than Bush” claims.

            1. Doesn’t make it right, but it ought to kill the “Obama is worse than Bush” claims.

              Whew! That’s all that really matters.

          2. From the intelligence repository suppository known as balloon-juice

            Ahh, that’s better.

          3. You type this ? like it’s a bad thing.

            A personal favorite

            1. How is that symbol one iota less evil than the Nazi swastika?

              1. The original post to which that post was directed:

                Remember, folks, in the end the difference between Obama and Bush is the difference between ? and ? . Really the same ball of wax in the end. It’s the Feds vs. the rest of us.

                1. Why does it matter who is beating you and stealing your money? It’s the beating and the stealing that is important.

        9. 4th Amendment is the new nigger.

      2. We’re at a weird point. People are actually slowly wondering what the hell is going on in DC, and the economic malaise is slowly sinking in. Here’s a guy who is telling you what’s wrong, and it’s not only believable, it’s true. And it lacks bullshit like “FORWARD HOPE CHANGE LOVE ME.”

        1. But is it artisanal malaise?

      3. I doubt many o f them would ever give Rand Paul credit for standing up to the Obama administration on anything.

        I was stunned when my hard-left (and I mean TEAM BLUE 4 EVA) sister-in-law told me after Paul’s filibuster that she agreed with his stance and that the Obama administration was full of shit regarding the drone program. She actually said, “I’m starting to wish I hadn’t voted for Obama and had voted for Ron Paul instead.”

      4. I doubt many o f them would ever give Rand Paul credit for standing up to the Obama administration on anything.

        Rand Paul: RETHUGLICAN TEABAGGER OBSTRUKSHONIST!!!1!!!!!! /prog-derp

    3. “And the government keeps serving him up more opportunities to impress people.”

      Batting practice fast-balls.

  5. Just last month, I introduced S.1037, the Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act, which would provide exactly the kind of protections that, if enacted, could have prevented these abuses and stopped these increasingly frequent violations of every American’s constitutional rights.

    Or they would have ignored your petty legislation just as they ignore the Constitution.

  6. The chances of Obama ever signing such legislation are absolute zero, and the chances of it getting past Harry Reid are mighty slim…

    But if the Republicans in the House could get their heads on straight for once and take Rand Paul’s lead on this, they could really embarrass the hell out of the Democrat leadership ahead of the midterms.

    I guess it’s just a question of whether the Republicans are sick enough yet of being perceived as the party of rich old, war-mongering, bible-thumping, white men. ’cause here’s another chance to beat that stereotype.

    I bet they watch the ball sail straight over the plate. Hope I’m wrong.

    1. I think the intent is to get potential presidential opponents on record as “voting against the 4th amendment”.

      1. That’s fine.

        Using it in the mid-terms would be great, too.

        How close is the Senate race?

        I’m sure some swing voters would love to know whether the incumbent is in favor of snooping into their phone records.

        1. Lots of Dems elected in 2008 have to run in 2014.

          1. Awesome!

  7. A favorable shout to Rand in this one…

    1. Bonus on the spreadsheet that has everyone’s vote on every FISA related bill

      1. No surprises in my state of Virginia.

  8. Pfft, more exploitative grandstanding from Rand Paul. Isn’t it a little too convenient he’s doing this just as the 4th amendment is in the news? He’s just doing this to help his presidential aspirations!

    1. Nothing wrong with that.

      Hell, that’s the only reason the Libertarian Party exists–to use the election process to get our issues in the news every once in a while. To grandstand!

      The whole purpose of this site is to grandstand on libertarian issues.

      That’s the only weapon we have in our arsenal. That’s all Rand Paul can do, too. On the one hand, he’s got one vote out of 100 in one half of one branch of government. On the other hand, he’s got a big microphone to grandstand with.

      Which weapon do you think is more effective?

      1. Of course. The joke is that any sort of political advocacy can be waved away with the same bullshit “he’s just grandstanding!” response. How else are you supposed to talk about a subject or get a law passed? Sure, a secret process for selecting drone targets is bad, but actually trying to address it through a valid political tool like the filibuster is shameless!

        The only plausible justification is that it’s the flipside of the “only intentions matter” attitude. Even if the results of his actions are good, his intentions are suspect! We can’t be seduced by his talk!

    2. MJGreen| 6.6.13 @ 2:42PM |#
      …”Isn’t it a little too convenient he’s doing this just as the 4th amendment is in the news?”…

      No, it’s not ‘convenient’, it’s deliberate. Did you read his comments? He mentioned he tried it before and this is what we got when it didn’t pass. He’s trying again.

    3. ” Isn’t it a little too convenient he’s doing this just as the 4th amendment is in the news?”

      Here let me help you…

      “Just last month, I introduced S.1037, the Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act, which would provide exactly the kind of protections that, if enacted, could have prevented these abuses and stopped these increasingly frequent violations of every American’s constitutional rights. “

      The 4th amendment wasn’t in the news last month so it appears that this is a little more than simple political points scoring on Rand’s part rather it is an issue of deep importance to him because he tilts at this windmill alone in the dark when no on is listening or paying attention

      1. I think we can consider MJG as flagged on bullshit.

        1. The fuck did I do?

          1. I’m guessing you were being sarcastic and they completely missed it.

            1. The left is so ridiculous right now, it’s hard to tell when people are being sarcastic. It’s hard to spoof people (like ObamaBots) who are so amazingly good at spoofing themselves.

              It helps if you go with some deliberate misspelling.

              Just like, I’m pretty sure that’s where “Teh Ghay” came from.

              Jesus, have you ever looked at any of Tony’s posts? The shit he writes every day is twice as ridiculous as that sarcasm–and he’s dead serious. …and he’s only one of a million just like him.

            2. Could be. I read it as trivializing of Paul’s intro of the bill.
              Hey, MJG, was that sarc?

      2. If we take their advice and dismiss Rand Paul’s grandstanding what are we left with to defend our liberties? Them? Them? Them, and their nasty attitude and status signifying posturing when in comes to everything? No, I refuse to believe we are that fucked.

  9. will this bill protect me from Costco and it’s data collection efforts?

    1. No, Costco is above the law.

  10. Kick Ass Rand! I was hoping you’d do this. You don’t have to worry about making subtle, nuanced arguments when they keep serving you up softballs like this.

  11. can we also restore the 3rd amendment?

      1. Davison recalled the “dark days” of 1982, when the federal case of Engblom v. Carey threatened to strip Americans of their fundamental Third Amendment freedoms. The ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that the State of New York had indeed violated the Third Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. The case, according to Davison, was “a chilling reminder of how even an established 200-year-old right hangs by a slender thread.”

        “I don’t think people fully understand how close we came to completely losing such a basic right,” Davison said. “If the Second Circuit had ruled otherwise, we’d be living in a world in which soldiers would be quartering amok upon our very hearthstones.”

  12. The only way this kind of law makes sense is if you have penalties.

    Hey, NSA, you violated the 4th Amendment. No funding for you!
    Hey, IRS, you violated the 4th Amendment. No funding for you!
    Hey, DOJ, you violated the 4th Amendment. No funding for you!

    Hell, we should do this for every Amendment.

    1. Forget funding cuts for departments. Hand down indictments for the individuals who violate the civil rights of Americans, under 18 USC 242.


      Penalties range from one year in jail to death.

      1. Penalties should reflect those that the target would receive. So if you wrongfully bust someone for a crime that is punishable by 10 years, then you should be on the hook for 10 years in the slammer.

        In fact, I would go a step further and add 20% to penalties. So if it is a $10k fine, you pay $12k. Can’t really do 20% above death, though.

        1. “In fact, I would go a step further and add 20% to penalties.”

          I would, too. The sleazebags are in positions of power that ought to require VERY careful consideration before using that power.
          Such that if you blew it by being casual, you REALLY take it in the butt!
          Hey, officer X, have you really considered all the facts? How lucky do you feel?

      2. Excellent. But the Teams always have virgins to sacrifice. Let’s starve the beast.

      3. Well, the budget penalty would kick in the event no individual was found to penalize.

      4. Why choose one or the other? Jail the bastards and cripple the funding for their cryptofascist bullshit.

  13. There is another part of this. When a warrant is issued, it must provide specifics about what is to be searched. There is no such thing as a blanket warrant. It must state the individual (if known), the premises, and the exact information that is sought. It is the failure of our supposedly “august” judges that allow these intrusions.

  14. None of this will matter so long as the Nazgul SCOTUS justices continue to be chosen from the ranks of constitutional law professors* who support big government, former prosecutors and attorney generals.

    What is needed is the appointment of a few defense lawyers who have seen first hand the abuses perpetrated by government.

    *(I am still betting that Barack Obama will be appointed to the SCOTUS by the next Team Blue administration.)

    1. Do you know how much speaker fee income former President Obama will have to give up to be appointed to SCOTUS?

      Please, be real.

  15. Everything old is new again. Welcome to the party, Rand, and Reason.com proletariat. For your reading annoyance, and freak out that will follow – (try not to SF the link)

    USSID 18

    Not too redacted to be illegible. Note the ancient, 20th Century date coding used. . .

    You’ve all been in room 101 longer than you thought.

  16. If he wanted to be a dick, he could call it the Civil Rights Act of 2013.

  17. Coming soon, the “Give The 4th Amendment A Decent Burial Act”…

  18. I would prefer that the bill RE ASSERTS and enforces our rights as codified by the 4th Amendment. This is a small, but very important distinction.
    A bill cannot RESTORE what was never GRANTED by a document. The Constitution only codifies rights inherent in citizenship, it doesn’t grant rights. It specifies rights so that the government cannot violate those rights which are inherent.
    Therefore no legislation can restore something which was not given by legislation, it can only re assert and enforce the rights which are already inherent; which are our birthright.

  19. uptil I looked at the bank draft that said $9702, I be certain that…my… brothers friend woz really earning money part time on-line.. there uncle has done this for under 9 months and a short time ago repayed the loans on their place and got Toyota. go to, Go to site and open Home for details

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.