Donald Trump

FDR's Wartime Violations of Civil Liberties Are Not a Good Precedent for Anything

And you don't get points for not being as bad.

|

Last night on The Kelly File, Carl Higbie, the spokesman for a pro-Trump PAC, defended the idea of a federal registry of Muslims by citing the World War II–era internment of Japanese Americans as a precedent, weakly adding "call it what you will, it may be wrong":

Megyn Kelly immediately leaped on this, and Higbie quickly declared that he did not in fact favor internment camps. The video then went viral.

The video also gave me a dose of deja vu. Last December, shortly after Trump started pitching the idea of keeping Muslims out of America, this exchange took place on Good Morning America:

Texas Historical Commission

DONALD TRUMP: What I'm doing is no different than what FDR— FDR's solution for German, Italian, Japanese…

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're for internment camps?

TRUMP: This was a president highly respected by all. He did the same thing. If you look at what he was doing, it was far worse. I mean, he was talking about the Germans because we're at war. We are now at war. We have a president that doesn't want to say that…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I've got to press you on that, sir. You're praising FDR there. I take it you're praising the setting up of internment camps for Japanese in World War 2?

TRUMP: No, I'm not. No, I'm not. No, I'm not. Take a look at Presidential Proclamations 2525, 2526, and 2527—having to do with alien Germans, alien Italians, alien Japanese—and what they did. You know, they stripped them of their naturalization proceedings. They went through a whole list of things. They couldn't go five miles from their homes. They weren't allowed to use radios, flashlights. I mean, you know, take a look at what FDR did many years ago. And he's one of the most highly respected presidents by—I mean, respected by most people. They name highways after him.

The good news, I guess, is that Trump said he wasn't in favor of the camps. The bad news is that he thought Hey, at least it's not as bad as this stuff that FDR did! was a compelling argument, just as Higbie seemed to think It may be wrong, but it's a legal precedent! would be a compelling argument last night. Is this the way the next four years are going to go? "I'd like to point out that this bill is not nearly as restrictive as the Alien and Sedition Acts." "You may not like the Palmer Red Raids, but you must admit they showed this could be done." "Eisenhower was president when COINTELPRO started, and they've got a memorial to him right here in D.C.!"

You want some more bad news? Korematsu v. United States—the 1944 Supreme Court decision that declared the Japanese internment camps constitutional—is still technically the law of the land. Sleep tight, mates.

Bonus link: "America's Other World War II Internment Camps."

Advertisement

NEXT: Leading First Amendment lawyer Bruce Johnson on the 'Speech Integral to Criminal Conduct' exception

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. It was like she had Ralph L. Carr coming out of her eyes, out of her… whatever.

    1. Wasn’t aware of RLC. Thanks.

      1. Great man, who hated internment even more than he hated the New Deal. I enjoyed this book about him. But the governor did lose a Senate race in a big Republican year in Colorado, probably because of his principled stand against internment.

    1. COMPLETE. GLOBAL. SATURATION.

  2. Boooooosh

  3. just as Higbie seemed to think It may be wrong, but it’s a legal precedent! would be a compelling argument last night.

    I’m not saying this to scare the shit out of the progressives, but isn’t he technically correct? Was there ever a court ruling that declared FDR’s actions to be unconstitutional? Or has it all been written off as an aberration of history?

    1. Was there ever a court ruling that declared FDR’s actions to be unconstitutional?

      Nope.

      By the way, don’t want to sleep tonight? Wait until you get a load of these Executive Orders:
      Executive Orders (EO) related to Federalism and Emergency Preparedness

      EO 13132: “Federalism”, August 4, 1999.
      EO 11490: “Federal Departments and Agencies”, February 16, 2004.
      EO 12472: “Telecommunications Functions”, April 3, 1984; February 16, 2004.

      EO 12407 “provides the regional and local mechanisms and manpower” for carrying out the provisions of Executive Order 12919: National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness. This order, signed February 22, 1983, by President Ronald Reagan, “sets up ten Federal Regional Councils to govern ten Federal Regions made up of the fifty States.”

      1. Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Functions, October 11, 2004

        The following EOs all fall under EO 12919: [8]
        EO 10990: “allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.” [9]
        EO 10995: Federal seizure of all communications media in the US.
        EO 10997: Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private.
        EO 10998: Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment.
        EO 10999: Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways.
        EO 11000: Federal seizure of American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires.
        EO 11001: Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private.
        EO 11002: Empowers the Postmaster General to register every single person in the US.

        1. EO 11003: Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft.
          EO 11004: Federal seizure of all housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation. Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as ‘unsafe,’ establish new locations for populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds.
          EO 11005: Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private.
          EO 11051: Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control incase of ‘National Emergency’).
          EO 12919 “Allows Cabinet Heads to Make Direct Loans to Government Contractors.”

          1. EO 10998: Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment.

            Yeah but, JFK was so dreamy. And he knew Marilyn Monroe!

          2. Well, that’s all reassuring. What are the conditions under which all of that horseshit can be invoked?

            1. Given that some of those were JFK (and Reagan) I’m guessing there was a little bit of nuclear winter thinking there.

            2. If I understand correctly, the National Emergencies Act (I think that’s what it’s called) gives the president authority to declare an emergency and just cite which powers he’ll be using. Congress can pass a resolution to reverse it, but the president can veto that resolution.

              1. THE 2ND AMENDMENT VETOS ALL OF IT.

                1. That’s crazy talk!

                  (Whispered): Unless a Republican is president.

              2. I’m sure during an honest-to-goodness national emergency, we shall see the sober and prudence decision making that typifies the Federal government.

                1. sober and prudence decision making that typifies the Federal government

                  Ve must DO something!

                2. I’m sure during an honest-to-goodness national emergency, we shall see the sober and prudence decision making that typifies the Federal government.

                  Well, we saw one in 2007 with the usual actors demanding we nationalize the banks.

                  1. Yeah, like a Vice President would try to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act so to arrest some dudes after a horrible terrorist attack.

                    1. Or like the police would shut down a whole city and go from door to door with guns after a pressure cooker bomb went off. And that the people would respond by saying how the whole experience showed they were Strong.

                3. Boston strong!

                  STEVE SMITH STRONG TOO! AT LEAST SMELL STRONG!

          3. It’s even more frightening when you have interacted with FEMA officials in the past and understand how blindingly stupid and arrogant they are.

            1. Lol enough of this fake news. Lol. FEMA camps aren’t real and can’t happen. LOL.

            2. It’s even more frightening when you consider that this is a “when all else fails” sort of plan and “all else” failing is more likely to occur when you’ve got some real shitheads running the government rather than the more competent people capable of making sure that “all else” doesn’t fail. It’s like this plan is designed to only be invoked by people you can’t trust to invoke it because the people you can trust to invoke it would never need to invoke it.

              1. I haven’t even mentioned Readiness Exercise 1984 and the FBI’s ADEX list!

                1. Man, you have enough material here for new Deus Ex trilogy…

                2. [hands roll of tinfoil to Heroic] Welcome, brother.

                  1. Is that the good tinfoil? Or the stuff they wrap burritos in? Cause if it’s the good stuff, pass it over here.

                    1. Telling you man, if it ain’t copper net with a grounding strap, you’re wasting your time.

                      The MAGA faraday cap is my idea, though; you can’t have it!

                    2. I prefer to live inside a giant hamster ball shaped Faraday cage.

                    3. Sir, I am shocked and dismayed by your question. Team Commenter only uses the finest heavy duty aluminum foil. But you may still wish to layer-up for additional protection.

                  2. Someone* isn’t getting an invite to my crazy prepper bunker.

                    *Crusty Juggler

                    1. Then your bunker won’t be crazy enough!

      2. How is 13132 5 years before 11490?

          1. My favorite executive order example is the Continuing Saga of the Mexico City Policy. It has to do with abortion funding. Exacted by Reagan in ’84, overturned by Clinton in ’92, Bush II reinstated it in 2001, Obama overturned it again in ’01 and Trump is, yes, expected to bring it back again.

    2. While we’re at it, did you know the “continuity annexes” set up by National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51 remain classified and even members of Congress aren’t allowed to see them?

      1. We all know that the continuation of the government is far more important than any other consideration. Without government, we are nothing.

        1. Well, it’s the name for the things we do together, and what’s more important than unity in a time of crisis?

      2. Of course, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. Ha, ha. But ah, with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present Gross National Product within say, twenty years.

        1. +1 Mineshaft Gap

        2. Please further explain this reference.

          1. “Mineshaft gap” is a quote from “Dr. Strangelove” (SPOILERS FOLLOW): After the government accepts that a nuclear holocaust is inevitable they start discussing moving the surviving population to underground cities to be constructed in mineshafts, and Gen Turgidson opines that “we cannot allow a mineshaft gap.”

            And you call yourself a commenter. [sniffs]

          2. Renegade’s comment is also a reference to that movie, but from a speech by Dr. Strangelove.

    3. Korematsu is interesting in that it’s a rare example of the Supreme Court applying strict scrutiny to a government action and then deciding that the government has met that standard. Of course, the government in that case purposefully withheld the assessment by the United States Navy that there was no evidence Japanese Americans were acting as saboteurs or spies for the Japanese, which was really the essential point of the whole case.

      Future attempts at internment based on race, national origin or religion would also have to meet strict scrutiny.

      1. The really insane thing was that the US was importing Germans and Japanese for internment from South America. They actively went out and recruited cooperation from other governments to round up and imprison otherwise non-threatening people.

        1. Do you have a citation for this? That’s an amazing detail.

            1. Duh, thanks. I had naively assumed it would not be in the wikipedia page, because I had never heard of it…

      2. Future attempts at internment based on race, national origin or religion would also have to meet strict scrutiny.

        HA HA! Joke’s on you, sucka! Future attempts at interment will be based on being part of a political ideology nebulously defined as “ISIS-ism” or something like that.

        1. Internment test —

          Question #17. What do you call the mooslem bible?

          Question #74. What year did Hammerin’ Hank set the home run record?

    4. Was there ever a court ruling that declared FDR’s actions to be unconstitutional?

      Sorta. SCOTUS generally sided with the government, deciding in Korematsu that relocation was legal in time of war, but also declaring in Ex parte Endo that incarceration was not.

      The real end of this didn’t come until 1988 when President Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.

      Wikipedia has good articles on all of this, start here.

      Also, just learned that the federal government buried some exculpatory evidence, The Ringle Report. This didn’t come to light until 2011, conveniently after the death of Charles Fahy.

      1. Damn, you guys are quick. And good. When I started composing the above there were no responses to Paul.

      2. Oops, looks like they were eventually overturned (from the Legal Legacy section of the main Wikipedia article to which I linked above):

        Korematsu’s and Hirabayashi’s convictions were vacated in a series of coram nobis cases in the early 1980s.[178] In the coram nobis cases, federal district and appellate courts ruled that newly uncovered evidence revealed an unfairness which, had it been known at the time, would likely have changed the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Yasui, Hirabayashi, and Korematsu cases.

        1. ruled that newly uncovered evidence revealed an unfairness which, had it been known at the time, would likely have changed the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Yasui, Hirabayashi, and Korematsu cases

          Somehow I doubt it

          1. Me, too, but they are pretending it would have. Which is something.

    5. I’m not saying this to scare the shit out of the progressives, but isn’t he technically correct? Was there ever a court ruling that declared FDR’s actions to be unconstitutional?

      You know, you could click the link from “still technically the law of the land” to find out…

      1. Look at this guy, expecting us to click through and read.

      2. Wow, way to suck all the fun out of things, Jesse.

      3. By the way Jesse, where do you stand on Pizzagate?

        1. By the way Jesse, where do you stand on Pizzagate?

          There’s the sort of insanity that I find entertaining, and there’s the sort of insanity that just gives me a headache. That one gives me a headache.

          1. And here I thought 4chan was finally going to contribute something to the world.

            1. I hope Jesse is studying how the Long Lines Building is stealing everyone the world’s data.

            2. Seizure .gifs weren’t enough?

      4. Thank you Jesse, I skimmed the first three quarters.

    6. No. And the Alien Enemies Act has never actually been taken off the books. So on the level of precedent, Trump could actually create Muslims camps his first day in office if he wanted to and there would be no legal recourse.

      1. “Alien enemies” is a concept from back when countries went to war with other countries. During the war, subjects of each country were enemies of the other country by virtue of their allegiance.

        Now, the people waging war against the U.S. are likely to be from (air quotes) “friendly” countries – so we can’t lock them up as alien enemies since we’re not at war with their home countries.

        So we need some other rationale.

        1. Except that Congress did approve the war in Iraq which has now morphed into the war against ISIS which spans multiple countries. I don’t think it’d be such a huge stretch without any additions.

    7. It seems that everyone in the US is already on some sort of registry except for illegal immigrants.

  4. The bad news is that he thought Hey, at least it’s not as bad as this stuff that FDR did! was a compelling argument…

    Never go full FDR.

  5. Sigh. TDS continues unabated at Reason, I see.

    Somehow Trump’s explicit disavowal of camps and criticism of the more extreme measures that FDR took is a sign that Trump is in favor of taking such measures.

    Somehow, a statement by a political operator in support of Muslim registries, which is not a position that Trump holds, is a sign that Trump favors Muslim registries.

    Trump’s point that FDR took more extreme measures than he is willing to take, yet FDR is venerated while he is demonized, goes whooshing right past.

    1. Trump should have been less verbose (yes, I know)

      “Is FDR a fascist? No? Then I can dump all Muslims into internment camps and not be one. Me today, you tomorrow.”

    2. Not as silly as people who claim to be upset about Republicans not restraining spending more, then favor a guy like Trump who promises to spend, spend, spend way more and complains that the Republicans haven’t been spending enough.

    3. For the record, I’m betting that Trump thinks FDR was great.

      1. I bet he just likes the highways named after him.

    4. I don’t see where in this article Trump was accused of supporting internment camps. What’s being criticized is that he defended his policies by essentially saying “Hey, it’s the same thing (or not as bad) as what FDR did!” Which might be relevant in calling out hypocrisy when liberals praise FDR, but that isn’t the context. He’s using FDR to justify his own policies, which is perfectly worthy of criticism. But of course if Reason criticizes Trump in a manner you don’t agree with, it must mean they’re the Daily Show.

      1. TDS=”Trump Derangement Syndrome”.

        But I think you are correct otherwise.

        1. That’s funny, I immediately though there was a comparison of media outlets. TDS probably does have TDS (I don’t watch it though) so I guess there’s little difference.

      2. I don’t see where in this article Trump was accused of supporting internment camps.

        Read between the lines. It’s all right there.

      3. I don’t see where in this article Trump was accused of supporting internment camps.

        Indeed, it explicitly said “The good news, I guess, is that Trump said he wasn’t in favor of the camps.” But you can’t expect R.C. to notice that; it would require him to read the post.

        1. Perhaps some sort of camp where commenters (yours truly) can be made to read the whole article is in order.

          1. Read the whole article and pay attention to it. What word could apply in such a situation?

            1. Try concentrating a bit more.-)

        2. From RC’s post:

          Somehow Trump’s explicit disavowal of camps and criticism of the more extreme measures that FDR took is a sign that Trump is in favor of taking such measures.

          Somehow, a statement by a political operator in support of Muslim registries, which is not a position that Trump holds, is a sign that Trump favors Muslim registries.

          RC clearly read your post, Jesse. It appears it is you who neglected to read his. And RC is correct in his assessment, by the by.

          1. I’m not seeing where Jesse is claiming that Trump favors either registries or internment. All I see is a claim that “FDR did it” or “FDR did worse” is not a good justification for anything. Which I believe to be true.

          2. RC clearly read your post, Jesse. It appears it is you who neglected to read his.

            No, I read his claim I treated Trump’s “explicit disavowal of camps” as “a sign that Trump is in favor of taking such measures.” I’m not sure why you think that’s an accurate description of a post that explicitly said Trump did not endorse such measures.

            And I read his claim that I treated “a statement by a political operator” as “a sign that Trump favors Muslim registries.” I’m not sure where my post is supposed to have said anything about whether Trump favors Muslim registries.

            1. And I read his claim that I treated “a statement by a political operator” as “a sign that Trump favors Muslim registries.” I’m not sure where my post is supposed to have said anything about whether Trump favors Muslim registries.

              You didn’t, explicitly or otherwise. Which begs the question, “If the statement and exchange were between Kelly and Higbie, why even bring up Trump’s comment with Stephanopoulous?”

              The point is Higbie mentioned registries, and Kelly called him on it, and Higbie is correct in his assertion when citing FDR, even though he denied supporting discrete camps for Islamo-Mohammedans. Period. Full Stop. End of Story.

              You specifically brought Troomp, though he really had nothing to do with their exchange, per se. You brought up his GMA exchange with Steph, and the inference can be made you are conflating the two discrete news episodes.

              1. You brought up his GMA exchange with Steph, and the inference can be made you are conflating the two discrete news episodes.

                Especially if you scrunch up your eyes juuuuuust right. Then you can ignore the context and squeeze any dumb conclusion you want out of the post.

          3. Maybe read the language past what you highlighted…

            1. I did, RBS. The preceding highlight negates the predicate. Also, since I might as well quote the rest of RC’s post:

              Trump’s point that FDR took more extreme measures than he is willing to take, yet FDR is venerated while he is demonized, goes whooshing right past.

              This assertion is correct (that Troomp was even mentioned at all is gratuitous), but was explicity part of the exchange between Kelly and Higbie.

              Troomp is being called out, but it’s Higbie who’s actually the discussing the hypothetical policy v. demonstrable, historic policy enacted by FDR. If anyone here should be demonised, it’s what FDR actually did v. flawed (yet entirely legal and permissable) policy ideas that most likely won’t see the light of day.

          4. Sorry, Groovus, but two autistic morons do not make a right.

            1. Fuck off, douchebag. If you want to argue their points, go right ahead. Just calling them names is childish and beneath the Reason commenting section morals(ha ha).

        3. (emphasis mine)

        4. The screen cap is pretty much TDS though.

          1. Or it’s just relevant to the subject.

        5. Something something weasel words something something TDS something something Robby Horse something something.

          Some people who usually seem pretty smart have a really dumb habit of falling into this pattern.

      4. He’s using FDR to justify his own policies, which is perfectly worthy of criticism.

        Yes, agreed.

        But of course if Reason criticizes Trump in a manner you don’t agree with, it must mean [TDS]

        I think it’s the breathless panic like in the below paragraph that gets people’s hackles up. It’s one thing to criticize Trump’s policies, but attempting to gin up “they’re sending us all to camps” panic because his rhetoric is inflammatory is exactly the kind of bullshit we’ve been making fun of progs for since the election (and before). Yes, Trump’s argument sucks. Yes, his immigration policies are a cause for concern. No, a few comments where he plays on progressive hypocrisy shouldn’t be stretched to mean that he advocates for everything that is legal but evil.

        TDS isn’t a thing because Reason dare write against the Orange Savior. TDS is a thing because Reason falls into the same emotionalist whining against Trump’s rhetoric that the progosphere does. There is plenty to criticize Trump on in the realm of policy and politics without going the whole “he’s gonna drag us off to the camps because he said something mean” emotionally-stunted snowflake route. TDS is essentially prog pantywadding because Trump isn’t PC (bro!).

        1. The good news, I guess, is that Trump said he wasn’t in favor of the camps. The bad news is that he thought Hey, at least it’s not as bad as this stuff that FDR did! was a compelling argument, just as Higbie seemed to think It may be wrong, but it’s a legal precedent! would be a compelling argument last night. Is this the way the next four years are going to go? “I’d like to point out that this bill is not nearly as restrictive as the Alien and Sedition Acts.” “You may not like the Palmer Red Raids, but you must admit they showed this could be done.” “Eisenhower was president when COINTELPRO started, and they’ve got a memorial to him right here in D.C.!”

          The “below” paragraph that I had to cut due to length.

        2. I think it’s the breathless panic

          That you read that paragraph as breathless panic is more telling than whatever you think the Reason staff’s TDS is, especially considering who wrote the paragraph.

          1. Seriously though, if we all know one thing about Jesse Walker it’s how prone he is to breathless panic. The crying out loud, the guy writes about conspiracy theories because he believes every single one.

          2. That you read that paragraph as breathless panic

            Forgive me for assuming that the (likely hyperbolic) prognostications of

            1) some hypothetical bill “not nearly as restrictive as the Alien and Sedition Acts”
            2) some hypothetical roundup defended on the basis of the Palmer Red raids
            3) some hypothetical defense (restart?) of COINTELPRO

            are breathless panic.

            I get that it’s hyperbole, but this is just ridiculous on its face.

          3. Wrong. According to my sources, Jesse was found unconscious after writing that paragraph and was rushed to the ER.

        3. I just don’t see the breathless panic in this post. Just exasperation at the shitty arguments we are likely to see in favor of certain policies.

          1. I read it as wry cynicism.

        4. No, I read his claim I treated Trump’s “explicit disavowal of camps” as “a sign that Trump is in favor of taking such measures.

          Try again:

          Somehow Trump’s explicit disavowal of camps and criticism of the more extreme measures that FDR took is a sign that Trump is in favor of taking such measures.

          Meaning, the non-camp “extreme measures”, not the camps. As for the rest, its pretty much what Trshmnstr says. After Trump makes the point that he doesn’t support camps and criticizes FDR’s more extreme measures, somehow that means he is going to support all kinds of bad stuff that falls juuuust short of historical outrages. When, the interview consists solely of Trump saying (well, as clearly as he says anything) that he’s not going to do that stuff.

          Aside from the TDS of imputing a Trump supporter’s views to Trump, there is the additional TDS of imputing bad things to Trump that he has never said. But if “TDS” is triggering to you, well, I’ll respect your safe space.

          1. I’m over my daily allotment, but one more:

            You will note that nowhere in any of the quotes from either Trump or the PAC guy is there anything but opposition to camps, registries, and other historical outrages. So how on earth do we get an article like this, implying (“Is this the way the next four years are going to go?”) that we are in for four years of Trump pushing for measures comparable to these historical outrages, if perhaps a trifle less outrageous?

            C’mon, the Trumpistas are saying “no camps, no registries, etc.”, and Reason publishes a critical article about it?

            1. There definitely is a whooshing sound here, but I’m not the one it’s shooting past.

              1. I get that you’re saying, “Whew, the bar sure has been lowered, huh?” But you’re doing it in a way that unfairly targets Trump. You don’t have anything like the case of TDS the rest of the HyR bloggers have, where even Jacob Sullum has been writing about Trump in ways that just don’t read like “Jacob Sullum”, but you do seem to have caught a touch of it late in the season.

          2. Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but you’re wrong. Apparently reason has wronged you in such a way that you’re now incapable of seeing the correct point in apparently any post by any writer. It almost seems like you’re going out of your way to intentionally miss the point. It’s honestly a bit strange given how level-headed you used to be. And no less bizarre is the fact that Groovus is always right there with you. Seriously, no joking, it’s getting harder to take anything the two of you say seriously anymore.

            Now maybe I’m just ‘random guy on Internet’ and my opinion doesn’t matter to you. That’s fine and I can respect that, but I still wanted to get it out there.

            1. I freely admit that Reason did such a dreadful job of covering the campaign that their credibility with me has been damaged, and that I might be a tad over-critical of them.

              Its possible, I suppose, that Jesse was actually mocking the people who take someone saying “Well, there’s precedent for a bunch of bad stuff, but we don’t plan to push things nearly that far” as proof that yes, they are in fact planning to push things that far. Perhaps my missing that take on the article is just more proof that you just can’t satirize reality any more.

              In all seriousness, though, what measures did Trump and Higbie say they oppose, that Reason doesn’t also oppose? Why do we get a critical article out of “we don’t support that stuff, even though FDR, who is widely praised, actually did it”? Shouldn’t we get an article that says “Hard to know what Trump’s plans are, but at least he is saying no camps, no registries, none of the more extreme stuff that we did in the past”?

              1. I freely admit that Reason did such a dreadful job of covering the campaign that their credibility with me has been damaged, and that I might be a tad over-critical of them.

                This. I try to limit my derision to a certain few authors that have proven again and again that they deserve it, but occasionally I forget to read the byline.

                1. I freely admit that Reason did such a dreadful job of covering the campaign that their credibility with me has been damaged, and that I might be a tad over-critical of them.

                  This.

                  This.

              2. The point that Jesse was making, as I see it, is that they are against camps but for stupid reasons. Also the fact that they are against camps doesn’t preclude them from being for some other solution to ‘the Muslim problem’. And whatever that future solution may be, team Trump may try to come out with the ‘hey FDR did worse’ excuse then.

              3. R C,

                Although I am of the same mindset as you regarding Reason’s piss-poor campaign coverage, – and yes the post-election articles do seem like a lot of TDS sour grapes – the fact is the POTUS and POTUS-elect deserve to be reamed new assholes at every opportunity.

                1. On principle at the very least.

    5. I don’t think any president should have such a power, but I do agree that was the gist of what Trump was saying. People who think FDR was wonderful have this way of not looking too closely at what he actually did.

    6. Dear god–the sheer speed of the wooshing.

      Surely here we have achieved FTL speeds–these folk move so fast to avoid the obvious in favor of their invented narrative that time and space themselves must surely bend and give way.

      1. I applaud the ambiguity of your “these folk”.

  6. I mean, he was talking about the Germans because we’re at war. We are now at war. We have a president that doesn’t want to say that…

    See, what are all them mooselimbs so worked up about? They’ll get their rights back just as soon as the War on Terror is over.

  7. Given that each and every green card issued to an immigrant bears the country of birth on it, I don’t quite understand in what sense the federal government does not already have the de facto registry for immigrants from Muslim countries.

    1. Yep. And most Muslim countries are hostile to non-Muslims, so they tend to end up with 95% Muslim majority populations or even more. If you immigrated from Pakistan, you are 97% likely to be Muslim.

      One of my favorite lines to use on progressives is:

      There has already been an American President who put American citizens in concentration camps.

      Liberal Democrat and progressive icon Franklin Roosevelt.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

      The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon Republicans but it always turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

      1. Objection! Immigration self-selects, and if you’re a Pakistani Christian you have additional motivations your same-class Muslim neighbour does not.

        I think Wikipedia claims something like half the US population of Persian origin is non-Muslim.

        1. The local Lebanese community here seems to be at least 90% Christian

          1. Lebanon was supposed to be a multicultural utopia.

            1. White (male cisgender) people ruined it.

            2. It was limping along until they imported Palestinians after Jordan had enough of their shit and fought a civil war with them (with side Syrian intervention into Jordan).

              And no, it was supposed to be a Christian Arab country, similarly to Pakistan/India split. Then demography happened.

            3. Lebanon is still about 1/3 Christian (mostly Maronite Catholics who claim descent from Crusaders and consider themselves French), 1/3 Shia, and 1/3 Sunni, with a scattering of Druze and Yazidis and who knows what else.

              1. From Wikipedia, because fuck serious research, I’m lazy

                The number of Christians in Lebanon has been disputed for many years. There has been no official census in Lebanon since 1932. “In 1926, when the newly independent Lebanon conducted its first census, Christians accounted for 84 percent of the population.”[13] However, “by 1932, when the last census was done, they were 51.2 percent. They were still half the country by mid-century, but by 1985, only a quarter of all Lebanese were Christians.”[13] Many argue over the percentage and population of Christians in Lebanon. One estimate of the Christian share of Lebanon’s population as of 2012 is 40.5%.[14] Therefore, the country has the largest percentage of Christians of all the Middle Eastern nations.

                1. And while the number of Christians in Lebanon is somewhat relevant, more relevant is the number of them in the US because they, or their ancestors fled to the US to escape war and persecution.

                  1. Yes, that was my point way up at the top. Country of origin is a shitty predictor of its immigrant demographics in US, unless they can walk there.

          2. The large Arab community in Jacksonville, FL is predominantly Christian as well.

    2. Trump’s proposal only for immigrants, or for citizens as well?

      1. The original “proposal” (open-mouth-step-on-dick is closest he does to proposals when he speaks) was only for new immigrants. Basically add new category to “communists” on immigration process.

      2. The Fox News screenshot says “immigrants.” Jesse wrote his post in a way to obscure this minor detail.

    3. I don’t quite understand in what sense the federal government does not already have the de facto registry for immigrants from Muslim countries.

      Which is a different thing from a registry of muslims. Consider the following classes of people: Native born Muslims (whether raised in the faith or converts) and this includes Nation of Islam. Native born people from majority Muslim countries who are not Muslims, for example all those ethnic Lebanese Arabs who have been Maronite Catholics for generations, Chaldean Christians (mostly ethnic Iraqi Arabs), etc. Indians (from India); India is a majority Hindu country (80%) but has a significant Muslim population (15%).

      1. Tonio, check the posted video. Both Kelly and the Trump supporter talk about immigrants from Muslim countries. Nobody in the video talked about American-born Muslims.

  8. And he’s one of the most highly respected presidents by?I mean, respected by most people. They name highways after him

    For whatever reason, I though this line was funny.

    1. It was a tossup in his mind between naming highways and putting him on coins.

      1. -1 thin dime

    2. Herbert Hoover completely destroyed the economy enforcing prohibition that made light beer a felony–to enrich the Glucose Trust. When he sent tax agents after the sugar, yeast and glucose corporations, EVERY bank in the country closed just BEFORE FDR was sworn in. To this day God’s Own Prohibitionists use the word “liberal” (meaning prohibition and Blue Law repealer) the same way Germany’s Nazi Party used the word. By adopting the repeal plank published by the Liberal Party in 1931 the Dems saved These States from the Depression and made FDR President For Life (24 years no GOP). The Democratic party had just as good a chance this month. But did candidate Hillary say “it’s your body, I’m for individual rights, not Big Pharma!” No, right? The cowards got the not-bloodying they so richly deserved for backing Chinese communist econazi warmer pseudoscience, and The Don cashed in on that dishonest cowardice. The Go-Pee won because the Dems ALSO betrayed individual rights and faked the facts of reality.

  9. A question for progressives: If registries of Muslims are unacceptable, what about the registries of gun owners maintained by several states?

    1. Or registries of car owners similarly maintained?

      1. Cars a matter of asserting/procuring property rights. That’s never been the purpose of gun registries.

        1. And collecting taxes. But titles for cars do serve quite a different purpose from gun registries. And as you point out, that purpose is to the benefit of car owners to some extent.

          1. I’m not sure how the state registry is any improvement over a signed title certificate from the seller (notarized, for extra protection) – except for the whole taxing (and tracking) aspect, which has zero benefit to the owner.

            1. I don’t know. It’s probably no improvement. All I’m saying is that it still does provide something that car owners can get some benefit from. Not that it’s the better way to accomplish it.

    2. Come on man! Gun owners are icky and stuff!

    3. I was debating with a “progressive”; he made the assertion that a gun registry is a tool that is useful for investigating crimes and has a negligible impact on lawful gun owners. He said that just registering your guns in no way stops you from using them for legitimate self-defense or sporting purposes. I said that having a list of all gun owners would just open the door to outright confiscation in the future, but he said “you can’t judge a law based on what it *might* lead to”.

      I kind of surprised him when I asked what was wrong with a Muslim registry on the same grounds. I stated that just being registered as a Muslim doesn’t stop one from going to the mosque or reading the Quran, and that he was guilty of “judging a law based on what it might lead to”.

      He countered that it’s “Nazi-like” and dangerous, to which I replied that the Nazis had gun registration also.

      1. Good work Akira, but unbrainwashing mystical looters one-by-one is a timesuck waste of time. Better to work on getting law-changing LP votes, as just happened. The example you provided, however, is most useful.

  10. EO 10998: Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment.

    “First thing we do, let’s kill all the farmers.”

    1. I see you’ve been studying Chinese “modernization” efforts.

  11. They name highways after him

    Hell’s expressways.

    1. I still remember how scared I was driving on the FDR Drive a couple of months after getting my DL.

  12. If I have to register my guns, YOU have to register your religion or lack thereof.

  13. Hey Crusty, what does the author of In Defense of Interment have to say about this?

    Thanks for asking. She Tweeted that Europe does it, so it’s not a big deal.

    1. I didn’t know that was Malkin beforehand, but I guessed it.

    2. I figured it was Malkin or Coulter

      1. Malkin is much better. If you must be cartoonishly evil, you should also look like a hot evil stepmother.

        1. Most of my adult life, I’ve been assaulted by people on the left with ideas that are great, with the reinforcement that “Europe does it”.

          The majority of people in America don’t really want to rock the boat, they just want to turn it slowly, in the right direction. Otherwise, everyone would be living a pot-smoking, gay-marriage-having country with endless subways and free healthcare (otherwise known as Europe).

          When Michelle Malkin starts saying “Europe does it”…

          1. Oh, that. Yeah, I get they love Europe, I was just hoping at some point one prog was

            a) presented with the Malkin table
            b) responded to the Malkin table (and it wasn’t “You lie, you racist harridan!”)

    3. In Defense of Internment. Sheesh, I’m getting my “John” on today.

          1. You mean Casa Blumpkin?

      1. If you stop scratching it, it might go away.

  14. In many European countries you have to register your religion as well as resident — there the tax office operates as offertory for the different churches. But I don’t think they collect for the local imams though.

    1. And people are catching on and declaring no religion so they don’t have to pay. Which is making the churches unhappy.

      Separating church and state was a really good idea for both institutions.

  15. FDR’s Wartime Violations of Civil Liberties Are Not a Good Precedent for Anything

    But they are a precedent. When people scoff about “it can’t happen here”, well, yeah, it did happen here. American exceptionalism ain’t so exceptional that we’ve ceased acting like human beings have always acted for millions of years. (I mean 6000 years, whatever.)

    1. Not to mention the great freedom lover who suspended the right of habeas corpus, and instituted the concept of “total war”, attacking civilian population and infrastructure.

  16. Higbie seemed to think It may be wrong, but it’s a legal precedent! would be a compelling argument

    I don’t think its a “compelling argument”, but its certainly a fact.

    I think there’s conflation being made between an argument that these things are “a good idea” versus “are they even legal”

    Kelly was specifically challenging the legality of such a notion. That he cited legal precedent wasn’t something he was leading with as his “case for why they are good” = he cited it as evidence that her doubts about the legality were wrong.

    A similar claim made by the constitution-waving Khan was that Trump’s proposed Immigration Ban on moozies was “unconstitutional”.. .and plenty of people went around smugly asserting that.

    But its actually not true.

    This also provides some background on the range of ‘race/ethnicity/religious-based discrimination’ that was legally sanctioned over the years.

    Its sort of a popular idea to declare anything people don’t like “illegal” or “unconstitutional”, but that’s often not the case.

    it should provide a helpful reminder that the constitution isn’t as limiting as we might like

    1. I also think the whole debate between guys like this, and the lefties who’ll point to him and go, “SEE!! RACIST TOTALITARIANS!!” are completely stupid, and a canard which distracts from the underlying reality…

      …which is – we pretty much already have a “muslim registry”, and the US already has programs in place to track these people.

      And democrats were themselves not long ago pushing for the people on the “No Fly” (*and the wider “secondary screening”) lists to have their second amendment rights stripped, sans any due process.


      No one had any problem at all
      with arbitrarily compiled “Government Lists” back then. They were in the service of gun control! Of course they should have lists being compiled of ‘potentially scary people’. No one batted a fucking eye at the concept.

      Now, because the same idea is mentioned by some trump lackey, we’re a pussy-hair from the death-camps.

      1. which is – we pretty much already have a “muslim registry”, and the US already has programs in place to track these people.

        Pretty much.

      2. Well put, Gilmore.

        The only lists I would be OK with are things that ensure property rights: land titles, car titles, etc.

        These “scary people” lists – which are and have always been a plank of progressives – have no place in a society which respects civil liberties of its citizens. Progressives contradict themselves when they demand scary people lists (foolishly thinking the lists will only exist for their pet scares – like teh gunz) while at the same time kvetching about opening borders. It would actually be easier to be a gun-toting illegal alien than a gun-toting citizen – the former has more civil liberty than the latter.

    2. I would hope the Libertarians would be able to argue that requiring all Muslims to register with the federal government is a stupid and pointless idea that wold not do anything to stop terrorism without having to resort to pretending the constitution is a magic document that prevents the federal government from doing anything Libertarians don’t like. Moreover, I do not think it is a good idea for Libertarians to embrace a broad interpretation of the constitution, because a lot of other people have some broad interpretations Libertarians are not going to like very mush.

      1. The problem is that two questions are being conflated here. Is it legal to do so? And is it a good idea to do so? Basically by answering yes or no to one you’re answering the same to both.

        An intellectually honest person can answer that based on previous precedents it appears to be legal. Although, it probably shouldn’t be, and it isn’t hard to imagine the modern courts overturning a blanket ban on muslims. (Although a ban on immigration from a list of countries with strong terrorist ties would probably pass.)

        As for the good idea question, that’s a personal opinion question separate from the legality question. Personally, I think it’s a horrible idea, but I’m not being asked to become a Trump policy advisor.

  17. The bad news is that he thought Hey, at least it’s not as bad as this stuff that FDR did! was a compelling argument,

    Last I looked precedent actually counts for something in the law. So, amazingly enough, “we have done this before” is actually a compelling argument in the law. It is not always a winning argument but it quite often is a compelling argument.

    Moreover, what Trump is saying here is that if you want to say my proposals are bad, then you better also say FDR was really bad. Now, that doesn’t work with someone who doesn’t like FDR. It does however work with a Dem operative like Stephanolopous, who no doubt worships FDR or at least makes him uncomfortable.

    Beyond that, we already have a federal registry of everyone; its called the Social Security system. We also have a registry of every church of all denominations in America, it is handled by an agency known as the IRS.

    A federal registry of Muslims is a pretty stupid and pointless idea. I fail to see what purpose it would serve. It would be just another piece of security theater. It is, however, given the context of the current size of the federal government and its past practices not that big of an expansion of federal power.

    Also, the same Progs shitting their pants over this think a federal registry of all gun owners is a moral imperative. So forgive me if I really don’t find their concern over this possibility that compelling.

    1. Moreover, what Trump is saying here is that if you want to say my proposals are bad, then you better also say FDR was really bad. Now, that doesn’t work with someone who doesn’t like FDR.

      The reaction to this is damning evidence that nuance is impossible in politics. The difference between “I support FDRs internment camps” and “You’re criticizing my policies despite FDR’s even more extreme policies” is pretty stark. However, the TDSers intentionally misread the second statement as the first to try to get people to piss their pants.

      1. Sooo… basically FDR had a pen and phone and managed to create internment camps with them…. perhaps taking away these all powerful tools from one person would be advisable then, instead of only worrying about it when the “wrong person” gets their grubby little mitts on on them…

      2. “You’re criticizing my policies despite FDR’s even more extreme policies”

        Is still a bad argument against criticism.

        I mean, I enjoy pissing on FDR’s grave as much as any other libertarian (and Trump’s one admirable quality has been his general irreverence), but invoking FDR’s terribleness when criticised is just one step above “Look over there!”.

    2. But this is a libertarian writer in a libertarian magazine where people don’t generally think that FDR is the great savior of the nation and creator of all that is good in government.

      So it’s a fine point to make against progressives. But still a shitty argument to those of us who don’t buy that crap.

      1. Okay, but the obligation to make a decent argument goes both ways. You say that it is wrong. Your opponent responds “but we have done worse before”. If you don’t find that convincing, that is your choice. You are however obligated to come back and explain why you think doing this is wrong.

        :”we have done worse before” is not a strong argument that it is the right thing to do. It is, however a very strong argument that doing it is constitutional. Making such an argument therefore effectively responds the bare assertions of the alleged unconstitutionality of the action.

        All I am seeing from this “Libertarian magazine” are unsupported assertions that doing this is unconstitutional and wrong. Sorry but I don’t have to buy that crap. If Libertarians think this is wrong they need to explain why and for once learn how to make an argument rather than appealing to their “principles” as a way of begging the question.

        1. At least for internment, it seems glaringly obvious that the 5th amendment prohibits it.

  18. OT: was working on a foyer for some condos today. Somebody had a crayon drawing from a kid hanging on their door. Didn’t really see what the drawing was, but written on it was the following “Be Nice. Be Kind. Report Others.”

    Now, maybe the kid was confused and it was supposed to be “Respect Others”, but the first thought in my mind was that this kid should be talked to. But not whoever hung it up. They were proud of the little fascist.

    1. That is amazing. You should have taken a picture.

      Somewhere up there, Khrushchev is smiling. “What did I say we’ll do to you? Oh, I was wrong, you’ll do it to yourself.”

    2. You should report that kid.

    3. What makes you think it was a kids drawing? What you’ve described could very easily be standard progressive art after 4 years of fine arts at college.

        1. Ha-HA! Panny Z from the top ropes!

          Seriously, whaddup with the handle change?

        2. good point

    4. Be Nice. Be Kind. Report Others.”

      omg that’s hilarious

  19. RE: FDR’s Wartime Violations of Civil Liberties Are Not a Good Precedent for Anything
    And you don’t get points for not being as bad.

    Of course they are…providing you’re a liberal democrat.

  20. We are not even fucking on war with anything other than our own government.

  21. So the mistake FDR made was to call them internment camps. He should have just drafted all the Japanese, and sent them there for basic training until the end of hostilities. At least they were not sent into combat. Lots of other citizens were sent to camps, then to battlegrounds, and died there. I do not think asking (OK telling) any group of citizens who are very likely to become the object of mob justice to relocate is all that bad during the time of a declared war.
    Now, as many pointed out, we are not “at war” with a nation state, but rather followers of a religion who have declared war on us. They are just too cowardly to adopt a uniform and wear it in combat, because it would be a bullet catcher. What is actually needed is a calm and reasoned debate by the federal legislature to determine if we are faced with a military conflict or with a police/criminal issue. Since the last numbered war, the US has not been willing to declare any armed conflict as a “war”, with all that legal declaration entails. Korea was some how a “police action” (!!?), Vietnam was, well, Vietnam. What has changed is that no one is willing to actually put on a uniform and say they are at war with the US. Because we are too good at that enterprise.

  22. I just don’t see how they could even decide, who would go in to the camps and/or registry. Short of rounding up all immigrants from ME and SE Asia. The Arab families I know living in Michigan are Christian with one or two Muslims with in. Those Muslims would always identify themselves as Christian, around people they didn’t know. Even still most of the Muslims I meet, who identify as Muslim. Are what we call Eid Muslims. Which is akin to those who call themselves Christian, but only attend church once a year, to appease a family member. So for the Eid Muslims during a round up, can easily say they converted to one of the other Ibrahim faiths or claim agnostic. Especially if they are Shi’a. Their doctrine allows them to go in to chameleon mode, during times like that. Also the fact that, most Muslims are either African or Asian. The minorities being Arab and Caucasian. How do they plan to round them up? Just grab all colored folks who have a funny accent?

  23. I have a couple of reactions to this:

    1) There won’t be any internment camps for the same reason that there won’t be a draft–the American people won’t stand for it.

    2) There is already something like a database of Muslims, I’m sure.

    They do it at gun shows.

    “Federal agents have persuaded police officers to scan license plates to gather information about gun-show customers, government emails show, raising questions about how officials monitor constitutionally protected activity.”

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/gu…..1475451302

  24. They do it at mosques:

    “Along with hundreds of pages of other secret NYPD documents obtained by The Associated Press, they show police targeting mosques and their congregations with tactics normally reserved for criminal organizations.

    They did so in ways that brushed against ? and civil rights lawyers say at times violated ? a federal court order restricting how police can gather intelligence.

    The NYPD Intelligence Division snapped pictures and collected license plate numbers of congregants as they arrived to pray. Police mounted cameras on light poles and aimed them at mosques”.

    —-Associated Press

    http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-I…..lim-spying

    I’ve known people who after visiting a mosque started getting pulled out of line at the airport repeatedly by the TSA, three or four times on the way to a flight–only to get pulled out of line and searched again just before boarding.

    1. The TSA swears, those are just random checks. They would never profile an individual. Never!

      1. Why would they take license plate numbers at mosques if they weren’t building a database or cross referencing that information with another database?

        Their denials are absurd.

        The only real difference is that Trump people will come right out and say what they want.

        The Obama and Bush administrations don’t talk about it–they just do it.

  25. I think this is another case of Trump people threatening to do something that the federal government has already been doing for 16 years under both Bush and Obama.

    Again, the alarm seems to be about Trump people talking about doing something–and ignoring the fact that these things have been done for dozens of years. A cross referenced database of people who go to mosques and gun shows and buy certain things and it’s shared by the FBI, the TSA, the NSA, et. al.–why wouldn’t such a thing exist?

    We’ve had ample evidence of the feds gathering this information for more than a decade!

    Trump people say he wants to do it, and now everyone goes bananas?

    I’m not saying the Turmp people’s ideas are justified because of misbehavior in the past; I’m asking why these things didn’t merit mainstream attention in the past.

  26. These States, like ALL other governments, have excluded anarchists (no big loss), Chinese (their revenge is sweet there, bitter here), Japanese (another smouldering affront), potheads (hey, a felony is a felony!) and any number of mentally ill evil fanatics alongside folks branded criminals because of victimless “crime” laws exported by These States to compliant mixed economies elsewhere. Mohammed’s sand people lost all claim to my sympathy by attacking olympic athletes in 1972. But Amazon is selling “The Last Train to Crystal City” as a Kindle book readable on an iPad. Anyone interested enough to want info on those “reconcentrados” camps could do worse than to buy and read the book.

  27. Easy fix: cease immigration from any country we don’t have a good feeling about, let neighboring countries with resources host refugees, and let those who disagree with with that policy volunteer their time and/or money to help them over there. Simple

  28. How can you recognize a Republican administration without bunch of people are running around shouting HABEAS!!!! ?

  29. “And you don’t get points for not being as bad.”

    You realize, don’t you, that this is going to be interpreted as “Adopt my preferred solution, in toto, without amendments, of be called a Fascist Bigot”?

    Yes, FDR was an appalling bigot and elitist. But OTOH, no the internment camps were not, in in any serious degree, comparable to the Death Camps. Yes, in a perfect world we would have open borders. No, we do not live in a perfect world, and Obama’s ‘the dog ate my homework’ immigration policy has the electorate – you remember them? The putative Sovereign? – completely fed up with ‘oh, we mustn’t judge!’ hog swill. There are violent career criminals loose in the country who are not citizens, and could be ejected with no serious harm to society. The laws we have on immigration must be enforced if we want the impractical and unjust ones to be repealed. And unjust though it may be, expecting to reign in our militarized cops before some attempt is made to address the kind of idiots currently throwing tantrums in may Democrat strongholds is unrealistic.

    Please, keep your ‘we mustn’t do anything about our borders’ idiocy under some degree of restraint. This is simply the wrong way to address it.

  30. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

  31. But that’s the thing: Politicians, bureaucrats, and too many judges are not out to score points as responsible public servants. They’re out to score points in the Olympic Games of Narcissism. So, they don’t care.

  32. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  33. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>> http://www.centerpay70.com

  34. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

  35. There’s a lot of difference between a list and incarnation. No country is obligated to take any immigrant from a society incompatible with theirs.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.