Justin Amash

What Did You Do During the War on Terror, Daddy?

Reps. Justin Amash and John Conyers tried to protect the Constitution. Barack Obama, not so much.


Note: This story originally appeared at The Daily Beast on July 25, 2013. Read it there.

This is what bipartisanship looks like—and it looks pretty damn fresh.

Yesterday, a bill co-sponsored by Reps. Justin Amash (R-MI) and John Conyers (D-MI) that would have brought NSA domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens into rough compliance with the Constitution nearly passed the House of Representatives in arazor-thin loss. Ninety-four Republicans and 111 Democrats broke ranks with their party's leadership in the losing 205–217 effort (a dozen members didn't vote).

Amash—singled out by name by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as a "wacko bird" after Sen. Rand Paul's epic filibuster over the Obama administration's drone policy—has emerged as the leader of a pack of unapologetically libertarian-leaning Republicans who vote their principles rather than their party. Like Rand Paul—who has worked with liberal Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and other Democrats on specific issues related to civil liberties—Amash shows that bipartisanship is not only possible but that it doesn't have to be an exercise in mushy, centrist, logrolling compromise. For Amash, it's not about splitting the difference between a turd sandwich and a giant douche, it's about bringing votes to your side by standing up for core beliefs. No wonder GOP leaders have taken to calling Amash and others like him "assholes."

The Amash-Conyers Amendment was attached to a $598 billion defense-spending bill that passed easily and would have, writes Amash, ended the "NSA's blanket collection of Americans' telephone records. It does this by requiring the FISA court under Sec. 215 [of the Patriot Act] to order the production of records that pertain only to a person under investigation."

In a characteristically lucid explanation posted on his Facebook page (Amash gives reasons for all his votes there), the University of Michigan Law grad underscores that the bill wouldn't have forbidden legitimate investigations into suspected terrorist activity, but it would have provided clear limits on the government's at-will ability to vacuum up phone and other metadata. Amash's interest in small government doesn't end with cutting cowboy-poetry readings and agricultural subsidies (he voted against the recent farm bill because it increases spending on subsidies and crop insurance).

Apart from being from Michigan, Amash and Conyers don't have much in common. The son of Palestinian and Syrian immigrants, Amash is barely in his 30s and barely in his second term. Conyers has been in office longer than Amash has been alive (indeed, he was on Nixon's enemies list before Amash was born). Amash is a hardcore libertarian Republican whose office walls are plastered with portraits of free-market, "Austrian School" economists such as Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard (about the only Austrian not represented is The Sound of Music's Captain von Trapp). Conyers is a liberal's liberal who helped found the Congressional Black Caucus, has pushed nationalized health care for decades, sued George W. Bush over the 2005 budget, and thinks that the Ohio vote in 2004 was rigged.

But when it comes to civil liberties and some other related issues, Amash and Conyers—and many of their colleagues—can pull together across party lines. Indeed, successful amendments to the defense bill pushed by Tea Party favorites Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Trey Radel (R-FL) unambiguously limit U.S. aid and involvement in Egypt and Syria without congressional oversight. Such victories are, as McClatchy's William Douglass and Hannah Allam put it, the result of "an unusual House coalition of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats."

Unlike the situational hawks and doves of both parties—whose interest in bombing foreign countries and limiting executive-branch overreach tends to wax and wane depending on who's sitting in the Oval Office—don't expect Amash, Massie, and the others to flip their wigs if and when the GOP wins back the Senate or the White House.

In a stinging note to his House colleagues, Amash wrote on Facebook, "As you go home for August recess, you will be asked: Did you oppose the suspicionless collection of every American's phone records? When you had the chance to stand up for Americans' privacy, did you?"

Which brings us to another form of bipartisanship—one that looks pretty damn ugly. Speaking not just for the Obama administration and the Democrats but for the majority of Republicans who ultimately voted against limiting the NSA, presidential mouthpiece Jay Carney said that his boss "welcomes a debate about how best to simultaneously safeguard both our national security and the privacy of our citizens" even as he acknowledged that Obama wants to talk about such matters only "in light of the recent unauthorized disclosures" by Edward Snowden and other leakers. But the time for talk, Carney emphasized right before the vote on the defense-spending bill, should come only after the issue is settled: "We urge the House to reject the Amash Amendment."

On the narrow issue of a vote to limit and defund the NSA, Obama, pro-war Democrats, and what can only be called the "Angry Bird" caucus of the GOP have won the day.

But the bipartisan effort on civil liberties being led by Justin Amash is likely to win the longer struggle because it proceeds from deep-seated principle rather than lip-service politics. Years from now, when the fever over the threat of Islamo-fascism has broken and all the government's abuses in the name of protecting Oklahomans from the imposition of Sharia and Floridians safe from exploding water parks have fully come to light, both Obama and Amash will have to look their kids in the eye and answer the question, "Daddy, what did you do during the War on Terror?"

One of them will be able to say without hesitation that he consistently stood up for transparency, the rule of law, and the idea that the government doesn't have the right to watch you simply because it can. Who knows what Obama will say?

Note: This story originally appeared at The Daily Beast on July 25, 2013. Read it there.

NEXT: More Than 100 People Killed at Pro-Morsi Protest in Cairo

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. “Who knows what Obama will say?”

    I’m not sure, but I know what the historians will say: Obama restored our civil liberties, which had been crushed under Bush, just as FDR repudiated Hoover’s fanatical laisser-faire ideology. And freed the slaves.

    1. Premier!

    2. I can guarantee, whatever he says it will be a lie.

      1. I suspect he will discuss how he grappled, in a nuanced manner, with the Bush legacy on civil liberties, how the Republicans stopped him from releasing the Gitmo prisoners or giving them fair trials, then some meditations from Abe Lincoln about suspending liberties in an emergency, then some more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger reflections on how people like Paul and Amash tried to politicize this complex issue, then some quotes from Pamela Geller and others who said he was Soft on Terrorism.

        In other words, an extended “look over there! Republicans!”

        1. Oh, and how he graciously offered to spare Snowden’s life if he turned himself in, even though classified briefings told him (Obama) that Snowden’s revelations led to the death of women, children and puppies, then some comments on how he would have welcomed an honest debate on civil liberties and NSA surveillance but Snowden made this impossible. Praise for Daniel Ellsberg for exposing an evil war, and an explanation of how Snowden is totally unlike Ellsberg.

          Have I missed anything?

          1. He was busy fighting on two fronts, the War on Terror and the War on Women.

            1. On which side?

              1. Why he stood with Wendy Davis of course!

              2. What difference, at this point, does it make?

        2. Eduard van Haalen| 7.27.13 @ 11:20AM |#
          “I suspect he will discuss how he grappled, in a nuanced manner, with the Bush legacy on civil liberties,…”

          His views were ‘evolving’, so you can’t expect instant action.

          1. I don’t understand why you can’t finesse “hot for teacher”, or at least “running with the Devil” into any or your comments.

            1. Or at least “Jamie’s Crying” or even “might as well jump.”

      2. til I looked at the receipt which had said $6023, I be certain …that…my neighbour was realy earning money part-time from there labtop.. there great aunt has done this for only twelve months and a short time ago paid for the morgage on there appartment and got a brand new Ariel Atom. go to…. http://www.cnn13.com

    3. He’ll say he killed a bunch of terrorists without abusing the American people. He will justify this by claiming that while they might have inconvenienced billions and gathered data on everyone, only true terrorists were brought to account (or at least terrorists as he defined them). The idea that the existence of practices like the NSA programs is inherently abusive will not have crossed his mind.

      So he’ll sleep perfectly well, just as most of his mindset do. I’ve been there. We’re arguing from a completely different origin than they are, and the arguments don’t make any sense… until they suddenly do.

      1. 3-year-old Obama-Assassinated Pakistani child in Allah’s garden:

        “What’s a terrorist, mommy?”

    4. “Who knows what Obama will say?”


  2. Obama will say “BOOOOOOOOOSH!”

    1. We know that’s what Shreeky will say.

  3. “Who knows what Barack Obama will say?”

    Nick is clearly baiting us.

    1. He is a master at that.

      1. ISWYDT

        1. For those who didn’t SWHDT: that makes Nick a masterbaiter.

          Eduard, I admire your rapist’s wit.

        2. In other words, a master baiter?

    1. That is excellent.

    2. It wasn’t his *ass* she kicked. I almost feel sorry for the poor bastard. Almost.

      1. Did you see how brazen he was? And how he attempted to assault her when she objected? I don’t feel sorry for the fucker. I was hoping a passerby would add a kick to his head.

        1. I said almost. My sympathies are with the lady, not him.

          1. She should have Martinized him.

          2. So you did. I wasn’t criticizing you though I did come off sounding that way. My apologies.

            1. S’OK.

        2. I was hoping a passerby would add a kick to his head.

          I would have.

          Plus, the spinning roundhouse kick was boss!

          1. Dude, the best part is the woman just standing there in the stairwell just watching this shit go down.

            I can only hope she’s chucking to herself saying “haha, sucker.”

            1. Granted, she’s like an one hundred and twenty year old Russian babushka, so I can forgive her not joining in on the beatdown.

    3. If you look at the video it’s pretty obviously fake, although I had my doubts from the animated gif. (Why would he casually stroll at a 1/4 pace and look at the phone after taking it? Run, dipshit.)

      Still, nicely staged.

    4. I haven’t seen a multi hit combo like that since Rival Schools.

      1. Rival Schools, you say?

        Fun fact: Saw them in Athens, GA the night of the infamous Tuck Rule game. Opening act was Taking Back Sunday(or was it Thursday?). Taking Back Sunday(or was it Thursday?) was awful.

    5. Just proves one thing:

      Against male opponents, go for the testicles first.

    1. That’s so cute! The cat isn’t bad either.

    2. Looks like the Get Fuzzy cat come to life.

  4. OK Wikipedia editor Torchiest, this. means. WAR!!

    1. This user is a member of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject.

      Good luck with that!

      1. I’ll just ask him to calculate my C&S character for me. That should keep him busy for a few months.

  5. What will Obama say?


  6. Jordan posted this last night and it appeared in 24/7, but it can’t be seen enough.

    Proof that no matter how ridiculous something is some politician will use it for control or revenue.


    This is why government power must be strictly limited.

    1. Most Europeans probably support it, as long as the free shit train keeps rolling.

    2. It’s impossible to facepalm hard enough after reading this.

  7. OT

    Yesterday people were talking about the irrationality of the juror that was interviewed by ABC News, especially here saying that “Zimmerman got away with murder”

    Looks like ABC maliciously edited the video to punish the racist verdict meme.

    The video that has been broadcast?onWorld News Tonight,Nightline, andGood Morning America?has been cut and spliced in different ways, often so artfully that the transitions appear continuous. So beware what you’re seeing. But the video that’s available already shows, on closer inspection, that Maddy has been manipulated and misrepresented.

    1. I’m amazed how good William Saletan has been about the Zimmerman trial. He’s normally a total idiot, but he’s been shockingly rational over this issue.

      The Zimmerman trial really is like a stupidity disease that managed to miss a few liberals.

      1. It’s separating the ones that care about civil liberties from the fascist progressives.

    2. The Justice 4 Trayvon folks are trying to make it look as if Juror B29’s remarks help their case. Quite the contrary – she says the actual evidence in the trial took precedence over her “heart,” which was against Zimmerman. She suggests other jurors felt the same way. So much for the narrative that the jurors had it in for poor Trayvon. The jurors were emotionally ready to be against Zimmerman, but they followed the evidence where it led. Why do the *feelings* of individual jurors take precedence over the actual fact-based verdict they delivered?

      1. And like the juror, I see Martin’s death as a tragedy and I’m pissed at the person responsible for Martin’s death. But unless some dramatic new evidence comes to light, I’m inclined to believe that the person responsible for Martin’s death is…Martin himself.

    3. Thank goodness there are Liberal White people to explain what the “only minority juror” really meant! Even if it means putting words in her “well-spoken” mouth.

      1. That’s why she’s well spoken.

    4. I’m beginning to believe the media is to be feared as much as the government. They have the ability to sway public opinion in whichever direction they choose. It’s fucking mind control. Virtually unchecked power to misinform.

      Sure, one can argue that the people are getting what they ask for, and the consumer is the watchdog of the media, but that’s not the case when they intentionally misinform. This is borderline fraud. Sure, we found out about this blatant attempt at misdirection, but how often does shit like this happen that we never find out about?

      1. Cut off the media’s copyright protection instead of letting Disney get extensions every 20 years and let the motherfuckers go out of business.

        1. Yep, they’re even more despicable than politicians.

      2. -Virtually unchecked power to misinform.

        Leftist say the same thing about advertising in general and campaign ads in particular. People are still free to ignore them and get the truth. It’s the people’s fault if they don’t.

        1. Advertisers are liable for their claims. See Listerine.

          When’s the last time the media got sued for lying to the public?

      3. They are simply a de facto arm of the government at this point.

        That’s the beauty of it. If you have an official Ministry of Propaganda, and most people know to take everything with a grain of salt and read between the lines because it’s propaganda, FFS. But if you instead get the message out by means of a network of independent but nevertheless sycophantic statists, and the misinformation can be much more subtle and is more apt to be believed.

  8. I like Ron Wyden. I wish he had some national aspirations. A Wyden-Paul Presidential contest would be great.

    1. Wyden voted for ACA.

      Automatic disqualifier, as good as he is on other things.

      1. In today’s climate I wouldn’t automatically disqualify politicians. Ironically, while I like Paul for so many reason his ardent pro-life position would give me pause before voting for him. Wyden’s ACA vote is a big strike but so is his support for gun control.

        According to his Wikipedia page Wyden ‘sponsored the Healthy Americans Act, an act that would institute a national system of market-based private insurance’ (which sounds better than the ACA [though that’s a pretty low bar]) and ‘was attacked by union interests for advocating replacement of the employer tax exclusion with a tax deduction that would apply to all Americans.’

        But on the good side, he’s for free trade (even with Cuba), voted against TARP, voted against reauthorizing the Patriot act, proposed Medicaid reform, led the fight against SOPA and has opposed the death tax, internet sales tax while supported capital gains tax cuts. Not bad.

        1. Of the ACA/gun control supporters, he is a clear leader. However, that is two big strikes.

          And I oppose abortion after point X, so Im fine with Paul on that.

          Our point Xs may not be exactly the same, but close enough.

          1. I’m not for a purity test with any candidate.

            Given the option, I would vote for the libertarian figuring he or she is going to come closest to my viewpoints, but since most races don’t even have one on the ticket, you just gotta pick the one who’s right on a few more issues than the other guy.

            At this point, I’d pick a serious spending-cutter as long as he’s not failure on civil liberties like the NSA. Everything else would be secondary.

    2. He also sounds a little too much like Sylvester the Cat when he talks.

  9. I’d like to introduce a bill requiring people to substitute the word ‘terrorism’ for TERRORISM! in all uses, so that the proper level of pants-shittingness is maintained by the American public at all times.

    1. I’m betting some of the ‘freedom fries’ crowd would go for that.

    2. Not “TERRORISM”?

  10. Obama: ‘Uhhhh, ummmm,uhhhh, let me make this, uhhhhh, perfectly clear. I tried to uhhhh, do all the right things to stand with the American people, but uhhhh, Republicans!’

    Sad thing is, although he had nothing to do with it from the good side, in the case of the Amash amendment vote, he would be right about the Republicans, bunch of sold out pussies.

  11. Been trying to find out something about our refugee system but unfortunately the latest annual report to Congress is 2009 which just happens to be when Obama and the Democrats took over both the admin and Congress. But I notice a strange thing, on the same page (iii) it has two different claims about refugees. First that 57 percent of refuges households were entirely self sufficient and at the same time 70 percent of refugee household got food stamps.

    Is this just some strange government idea that receiving food stamps is the same as being self sufficient?

    “””Approximately 57 percent of all sampled refugee households in the 2009 survey were entirely self-sufficient (subsisted on earnings alone). “”

    “””About 70 percent of refugee households received food stamps “””


    1. They use their food stamps all by themselves. The other 43% need assistance in using them.

      1. According to a report a read a few days ago, food stamp recipients are growing at 2 times the rate of new jobs, so we’re probably going to have to create a new federal agency staffed with millions whose sole job is to go to the Walmart with food stamp users, to show them how to use them. But, new jerbz created!

        1. This is what Obama meant when he said he’s going to help the middle class.

    2. Is this just some strange government idea that receiving food stamps is the same as being self sufficient?

      Two things are at work here. First is that the government conviently doesn’t consider SNAP/EBT to be “welfare” (aka TANF). You can have a high enough income to not qualify for welfare but still be eligible for food assistance.

      Secondly, the food stamp program was never about poverty. It is a make-work program for the USDA. Food stamps were concieved as a way of paying farmers to move surplus crops to the inner city.

      The idea for the first FSP has been credited to various people, most notably U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace and the program’s first administrator, Milo Perkins. Of the program, Perkins said, “We got a picture of a gorge, with farm surpluses on one cliff and under-nourished city folks with outstretched hands on the other. We set out to find a practical way to build a bridge across that chasm.

      Again, because food stamps are administered by the USDA as opposed to the Department of Health and Human Services…abracadabra…it’s not welfare!

      1. Thanks, understand, the government once again making its own definition of words to hide what’s really going on. Its not only to deceive the public but they probably deceive themselves. There is probably people working at the refugee agency who are proud that 57 percent of the refugees are “self sufficient”.

        1. Well since they are the government and they’re receiving government aid, they really are self-sufficient you see.

        2. I have worked with many refugees in my day. One of my colleagues was a refugee herself (a Jewish Soviet refusenik). In my experience refugees tend to be hard working and grateful they are someplace safe. The ones that successfully make it here tend to be the ones with some sort of connections, thus many of them were doctors, engineers, or military officers. Unfortunately, they don’t often have the English language skills to continue their careers here, so they are forced to find entry-level jobs that don’t require a high level of language skill.

          Still, I can count the success stories on my abacus. My plumber, for example, was a Bosnian refugee. Back in Yugoslavia, he was a civil engineer in charge of two pipe factories. Upon arrival, the only work he could find was being a night-shift janitor. As his English skills improved, and his finances grew, he studied for his plumbing licenses, apprenticed with a plumber and then eventually left and is now in charge of his own plumbing business.

          So, from my own personal viewpoint, the 57 percent statistic doesn’t seem very far-fetched to me.

          1. A good abacus can count into several digits.

        3. “How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” – Samuel Adams

  12. This era will definitely go down in history as being even more ridiculous than the Red Scare.

    Actually, the Red Scare looks positively reasonable by comparison to the War on Terror–especially when you consider the nature of the threat. Al Qaeda has never, isn’t, and never will present as big a security threat as the Soviet Union did…

    For what it’s worth, whenever you see a president making a virtue of out of cowardice, it always seems to end in tears for libertarians. Whenever it suddenly becomes manly (in a critical mass of people’s eyes) to be frightened all the time, like a coward, better hold on tight.

    The biggest threat to our Constitutional rights may not be the government after all; maybe the biggest threat to our rights is widespread cowardice infecting the American people. The next time you hear people say that we can’t respect the Fourth Amendment, for instance, because Al Qaeda might hurt them, in addition to whatever else you say, make sure you also call them a coward.

    1. Al Qaeda has never, isn’t, and never will present as big a security threat [to the American people] as the Soviet Union did U.S. Government does…

    2. The biggest threat to our Constitutional rights may not be the government after all; maybe the biggest threat to our rights is widespread cowardice infecting the American people.

      That happened 20-30 years ago when people started taking eco-bullshit seriously. I don’t mean cleaning up polluted air and waters but the fear mongering about trace chemicals. Remember the Alar scare?

      I remember a news story then of some woman that accidentally gave her kid an apple the day after 60 minute’s story and called the cops to keep her kid from eating it. And they dutifully went to the kids school and got the apple back. I knew then that we were fucked.

      1. For those who don’t remember it.


    3. Too bad that those same people are statistically far more likely to be involved in a car wreck or even be hit by lightning than they are to be the victims of an attack.

  13. Amash I’m often in agreement with, Conyers seldom so. Regardless, it’d be great to have more of this flavor of bipartisanship.

  14. Pelosi, McCain, et. al. should be pallbearers for the Bill of Rights, so they can let it down for the last time.

  15. The only difference being that if Obama loses, he’ll live in a free country. If Amash loses, he’ll be in some gulag/FEMA camp somewhere in Wyoming.

  16. I don’t know what he’ll say but I’m pretty he’ll work into the narrative that he’s in the lineage of Augustus, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Bismarck, and all the Founding Fathers into one with a little dash of Sun Tzu, Macchiavelli and von Clausewitz.

    Heck, bigger than Jesus maybe?

    1. Oh…and Queen Victoria.

  17. Let us also praise the famous entrepreneur who dispatched one way valve salesmen to the city council chambers of Georgia , so they coulld save their citizens from Koran crazed assassins pumping poisons backwards into municipal reservoirs from un-guarded fire hydrants.

    I beleive he racked up $600,000 in sales

    1. Bet it was paid for by a DHS grant!

  18. Shoveled shit in Louisiana.

  19. Off topic, but a sincere question.

    I understand many of libertarians attitudes and reasonings, but when it comes to free trade I feel totally lost.

    It seems to me that allowing borders to be controlled by nothing equals borders being controlled exclusively by foreign nations.

    If all nations had freedom than I would see no impeding problem.

    Like a cell wall without any control, how can a nation effectively not import other nations problems and by osmosis lose value as it approaches equilibrium of value, and equilibrium of suffering?

    I mean if your goal is just raw human suffering to decrease that is one thing, but if your goal is to seek the best interest of the nation in question, how can you allow open borders with political entities which are incompatible?

    IMO free trade is pure evil. not because freedom is evil, but because free trade imports the market of the foreign nation. if they produce goods with slave labor, then your home nation is then competing on a global market with slaves. their standard of living goes down as they are directly competing with slaves.

    1. for me its not an issue of transactional freedom, its an issue of indirect importation of others political system. it doesnt change our laws but its effect on economic liberty is devastating.

      i am not versed in all terminology but do want to understand this position that is held by many who post here. Maybe this is a simple misunderstanding i have and not a philosophical difference. i would think nonmeddling antiwar folks would favor isolation from scummy nations that treat their citizens like chattle. what am i missing here?

      1. i dont think we are doing our society any favors by merging the systems.

        is this an exercise in altruism to the world?

      2. Certainly trade with countries that feature oppressive regimes like China’s have been an enormous benefit to American consumers. Otherwise American consumers wouldn’t willingly continue to purchase so many goods imported from China…

        But even apart from that, how much good has trade with China done for American security policy. When people talk about a Maoist insurgency somewhere, now, they’re talking about the insurgency’s ideology–not its funding. What a change that’s been for the better–certainly from an American security policy perspective.

        China holds a ton of our debt, and that means it would hurt them terribly if they went to war with the United States. China sells an enormous amount of manufactured goods to consumers in the United States–their economy would implode if all those exports suddenly went away because China attacked us for some reason.

        Nothing aligns two countries interests like trade. …and the individuals buying stuff at Wal*Mart weren’t even trying to promote peace with China–they were just making choices for themselves. Peace with China is just icing on the cake.

    2. “I mean if your goal is just raw human suffering to decrease that is one thing, but if your goal is to seek the best interest of the nation in question, how can you allow open borders with political entities which are incompatible?”

      The people who are best at making choices for the benefit of the nation are the individuals who make choices for themselves every time they buy something.

      This is fundamental Adam Smith. If you think you’re better at making my choices for me than I am, based on which countries you approve of, whatever? Then you’re wrong. And it turns out that millions of individuals making choices for themselves outperform some government imposing their own preferences on those millions of people…

      It’s the same principle behind why the S&P 500 consistently outperforms managed mutual funds. It’s the principle behind why central planning is always such a failure. It’s Adam Smith 101.

  20. I changed many things or just definitions.\\\

    Global Aggressive Interventionism=Peace
    Total Surveillance=Respect for privacy
    Private business=Creation of GOVT
    Warrantless searches=protecting the Homeland from evildoers
    Militarized Police State=Public safety jobs program
    Windmill=The energy-free future

    1. I’d only add:


      You can supposedly tell how brave someone is by how frightened they are of terrorism.

  21. 888 630 wmal


    discussing this now

    On the Oathkeepers’ Snowden billboards


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.