[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Christianity, Libertarianism, and the Drug War This talk was given on August 8 at the Christians for Liberty conference in Austin, Texas. Although I have been writing from the perspective of a conservative Christian libertarian for the past twenty years, it was not until 2009 that I first wrote something about the Drug War. This is because I knew the negative reaction I would receive from conservatives—and especially Christian conservatives. But after writing that initial article, there has been no turning back. I now write about the Drug War, not as much as I write about Christianity and war, but quite often. Do you want to live in an authoritarian society? Do you desire an intrusive government? Do you wish for a government that is a nanny state? Do you yearn for government bureaucrats to tell you what you can and cannot do? Do you want to give up your personal and financial privacy? Do you like puritanical busybodies telling you how to live your life? Do you believe the government should define and enforce morality? Do you reason that vices should be crimes? Then you should support the War on Drugs. Do you love liberty? Do you treasure freedom? Do you respect property rights? Do you want to live in a free society? Do you prefer government at all levels to be as limited as possible? Do you think people should be responsible for the consequences of their own actions? Do you wish the federal government would at least follow its own Constitution? Do you reason that vices should not be crimes? Then you must oppose the War on Drugs. If you oppose drug use, you should oppose the War on Drugs even more. If you consider drug abuse to be evil, you should consider the War on Drugs to be more evil. If you think that taking drugs is a sin, you should think that the War on Drugs is a greater sin. Now, it is unfortunate that before I write or speak about the Drug War, I have to first make it perfectly clear, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that I don’t say and write the things I do because I am a licentious libertine who just wants to be able to legally get high. So, lest there be any misunderstanding, let me make myself unmistakably and unambiguously clear. I neither use mind-altering, behavior-altering, or mood-altering substances nor recommend that anyone else use them either—for any reason. I don’t even drink alcohol. And not only do I not use what are classified by the government as illegal drugs, I wouldn’t use them if they were legal, and would prefer that no one else use them either—whether they are legal or illegal. I am even skeptical about the health benefits of most legal drugs—prescription or over-the-counter. Now, just in case somebody still doesn’t get it, let me try again: But even though I consider the use of any drug for any reason other than because of a medical necessity to be dangerous, destructive, and immoral, I consider the government’s War on Drugs to be even more dangerous, destructive, and immoral. I don’t think anyone should support the government’s War on Drugs any more than they should support the government’s wars on poverty, terrorism, obesity, cholesterol, trans fat, cancer, tobacco, dietary fat, salt, and liquids over 3.4 ounces on airline flights. Okay, now that you are certain that I don’t want kids to use drugs, that I would rather air traffic controllers not smoke weed on their breaks, and that I prefer Americans don’t walk around all day stoned out of their minds, I can talk about Christianity, libertarianism, and the Drug War. I will take up these things in reverse order. First, the Drug War. The Drug War The War on Drugs was formally announced by President Richard Nixon on June 17, 1971. Speaking at a press conference at the White House, Nixon declared: “America’s public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.” He continued his military rhetoric in a special message to Congress on drug abuse prevention and control, calling for a “full-scale attack” on drug abuse “on many fronts.” To wage “an effective war against heroin addiction,” he called for “a worldwide escalation in our existing programs for the control of narcotics traffic.” He said that legislation then recently passed in Congress provided “a sound base for the attack on the problem of the availability of narcotics in America.” Nixon also appointed the first drug czar and oversaw the establishment of the Drug Enforcement Agency—the dreaded DEA. This reminds me to say that I think three-letter words are worse than four-letter words. Words like DEA, TSA, CIA, FBI, NSA, EPA, DHS, FCC, FTC, and IRS. Although the War on Drugs was formally declared by Nixon, this doesn’t mean that the federal government didn’t fight against drugs and drug abuse for decades before Nixon. The federal government began introducing anti-narcotics laws in 1905. This means that there was a time in this country when all drugs were perfectly legal. Just like there was a time in this country when you were free to do what you wanted with your own property without the EPA declaring it a wetland. Just like you were once free to only associate with whomever wanted to associate with you. Just like you were once free to have a garage sale without getting a permit. Although drug freedom was drastically reduced by the Opium Exclusion Act of 1909, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, the Narcotic Control Act of 1956, and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, it is the actions of Nixon that will forever be associated with beginning the Drug War. Since the beginning of Nixon’s war, we have had the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988, and George W. Bush’s Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003 and Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. And who can forget the D.A.R.E. school-lecture program and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America’s television ad featuring a hot skillet, an egg, and the caption: “This is your brain on drugs.” I think this rather describes the brain of anyone who would work for the DEA. The DEA—I speak of the federal DEA, the states all have their own DEA—has over 9,200 employees in 221 offices organized in 21 divisions throughout the United States. The DEA has 86 offices in 67 countries around the world. The DEA employs close to 300 chemists. Its Office of Aviation Operations has 100 airplanes and more than that many pilots. The DEA’s budget for fiscal year 2015 is $2.88 billion. And not only does the DEA relieve American taxpayers of their money, over the past ten years it has stripped drug traffickers of over $29 billion in revenues through the seizure of both assets and drugs. The DEA is also proud of the fact that twice in its history, its administrator has been a woman. Although twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medical use (with heavy regulation), some states have decriminalized the possession of certain amounts of marijuana (with heavy regulation), and four states have legalized the recreational use of marijuana (with heavy regulation), the federal War on Drugs continues unabated and unquestioned. It enjoys wide bipartisan sponsorship in Congress, is equally supported by both major political parties, is never an issue in any congressional primary or general election, is not a campaign focus of any of the current crop of presidential candidates, is backed by the majority of Americans, is cheered by most religious people, is espoused by most parents with young children, is championed alike by liberals, conservatives, moderates, centrists, populists, progressives, centrists, and Tea Partiers, is encouraged by the majority of law-enforcement personnel, and is even defended by those who say they advocate “the Constitution,” “civil liberties,” or “limited government.” The gross injustices and absurdities of the Drug War are legion. Thanks to George Bush and his fellow Republicans passing the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act in 2005, a grandmother from Mississippi was arrested in Alabama for making an out-of-state purchase of Sudafed, abused, humiliated, and jailed for 40 days before being released. In my state of Florida, police in the city of Daytona Beach Shores illegally strip-searched female dancers in front of a group of male officers during a raid on a club because its employees allegedly sold illegal drugs to patrons. In 2010, a mother of four was found guilty of selling $31 worth of marijuana to an undercover cop and given a twelve-year prison sentence even though it was her first criminal offense. Just this year a young man in South Carolina spent weeks in a coma and was left paralyzed after police in militarized gear broke down the door of his apartment and shot him nine times. His crime? Selling a plant the government didn’t approve of. Police found $970 in his pocket and 8 ounces of pot in his apartment. Some unfortunate Americans have been sentenced to life in prison for drug possession because it was their third drug offense. Thanks to the War on Drugs and civil asset forfeiture laws, police regularly practice “policing for profit” whereby they confiscate cash from law-abiding Americans because having a large sum of money on you “must” mean that you are involved in drug trafficking. And then there are the outrages that are generally not seen: Americans incarcerated for drug offenses who are raped, beaten, humiliated, and suffer the loss of their jobs, their money, and their families. And drug warriors maintain that it is drug users who are immoral? In a nutshell, what is the War on Drugs? It is simply government bureaucrats, nanny state do-gooders, puritanical busybodies, statist drug warriors, and assorted hypocrites telling you want you can and can’t consume, swallow, smoke, sniff, snort, inject, or ingest, and locking you up in a cage if you possess, manufacture, process, buy, sell, distribute, transport, cultivate, or “traffick in” a substance the government doesn’t approve of. Let us next look at what libertarians say about the Drug War. Libertarianism Libertarians may have their disagreements—most of them minor or petty—but if there is one thing they are unanimous on it is the tremendous evil that is the War on Drugs. Not so, say liberals and conservatives: The Drug War is necessary because drugs are addictive, unhealthy, dangerous, a bad habit, and self-destructive. Yes they are, says the libertarian. Drugs are addictive like caffeine, unhealthy like high-fructose corn syrup, dangerous like snowboarding, a bad habit like biting your fingernails, and self-destructive like smoking cigarettes. So why are liberals and conservatives not adamant about the government sending people to prison for doing these things? But, continues the liberals and conservatives, using drugs may lead to premature death. You mean like using alcohol?, replies the libertarian. But using drugs may cause harm to your children. You mean like divorce? But using drugs has societal costs. You mean like obesity? But using drugs may lead to financial ruin. You mean like using credit cards? But using drugs may lead to crime. You mean like gambling can? But using drugs may have unintended consequences. You mean like having casual sex? But using drugs may kill you. You mean like using prescription drugs? Libertarians are weary of pointing out that the War on Drugs is a complete and utter failure. The War on Drugs has failed to prevent drug abuse. It has failed to reduce drug abuse. It has failed to keep drugs out of the hands of addicts, including prisoners. It has failed to keep drugs away from teenagers and children. It has failed to reduce the demand for drugs. It has failed to stop the violence associated with drug trafficking. It has failed to help drug addicts get treatment. It has failed to end drug overdoses. It has failed to have an impact on the availability of most drugs in the United States. Just last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that heroin use in the United States increased 63 percent from 2002 through 2013. Heroin deaths nearly quadrupled during this period and rates of abuse doubled among women. This in spite of the fact that the DEA has had a four-fold increase in heroin seizures along the southwest border since 2008. But, to be fair, libertarians also acknowledge that the War on Drugs has succeeded. It has succeeded in clogging the judicial system with non-crimes. It has succeeded in swelling prison populations with nonviolent offenders. It has succeeded in corrupting law enforcement. It has succeeded in fostering violence. It has succeeded in destroying personal and financial privacy. It has succeeded in militarizing the police. It has succeeded in hindering legitimate pain management. It has succeeded in hampering the treatment of debilitating diseases. It has succeeded in turning doctors into criminals. It has succeeded in destroying the Fourth Amendment. It has succeeded in eroding civil liberties. It has succeeded in making criminals out of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Americans. It has succeeded in turning America’s inner cities into war zones. It has succeeded in unreasonably inconveniencing retail shopping. It has succeeded in ruining more lives than drugs themselves. It has succeeded in wasting billions of taxpayer dollars. But even if none of these things were true, libertarians would still be right about the Drug War. Here are some things they say about it: It is on this last point that libertarians say that conservatives ought to be standing with them when it comes to opposing the Drug War. Conservatives are always talking about their admiration for the Constitution, their support of the Tenth Amendment, and their belief in limited government. Yet, the biggest supporters of the Drug War are the conservatives who talk the most and the loudest about these things. But, reasons the libertarian, how could anyone who said he believed in following the Constitution support the federal government’s War on Drugs? Did not James Madison write in Federalist No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite”? Does the Constitution authorize the national government to intrude itself into the personal eating, drinking, or smoking habits of Americans? Does the Constitution authorize the national government to regulate, criminalize, or prohibit the manufacture, sale, or use of any drug? Does the Constitution authorize the national government to restrict or monitor any harmful or mood-altering substances that any American wants to consume? Does the Constitution authorize the national government to ban anything? Libertarians have conservatives over a barrel when they point out that when progressives in and out of the national government sought to prohibit the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” after World War I, they knew they could only do so by amending the Constitution. That is why the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1919. The Amendment’s repeal in 1933 was perhaps the only good thing to happen during the Roosevelt era. The libertarian position on the Drug War may seem radical to some, but it is consistently and straightforwardly so: Libertarians reason that every crime needs a tangible and identifiable victim, not a potential or possible victim. Having bad habits, exercising poor judgment, engaging in dangerous activities, and committing vices are not crimes. It is on this latter point that Lysander Spooner so famously explained: “Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.” Libertarians maintain that everyone—even those who are the most adamantly opposed to using drugs—should be interested in ending the government’s War on Drugs. For, as the economist Ludwig von Mises so eloquently said: “As soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not interfere in any questions touching on the individuals mode of life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail.” Libertarians argue that once the government claims control over what a man puts into his mouth, nose, and bloodstream, there is no limit to its power. Again, as Mises said: “If one abolishes man’s freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away.” Libertarians insist not only that it is just simply not the purpose of government to protect people from bad habits, harmful substances, or vice, but also that doing so leads to greater evils. As Mises explained in Human Action: Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments…. And why limit the government’s benevolent providence to the protection of the individual’s body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs. Okay, so now that we have established with certainty the libertarian view of the Drug War, it remains to be seen if some, or all, or none of what libertarians say about the War on Drugs is compatible with Christianity. Christianity Even if libertarians make many valid points about the evils of the government’s War on Drugs, even if they make rational, reasonable, and logical arguments for ending the Drug War, what really matters to us as Christians is: “What saith the Scripture?” Jesus said to the chief priests and elders: “Did ye never read in the scriptures” (Mat 21:42)? Jesus said to the Jews: “As the scripture hath said” (John 7:38). Jesus said to the Saducees: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures” (Mat 22:29). The Bible says to “try the spirits.” The Bible says to “prove all things.” What the Bible says about the Drug War is really the most important thing, is it not? Let’s look first at what Christians generally say about the Drug War. It turns out that they basically say the same things as their secular drug warrior counterparts. And, of course, when they do, they sound just as nonsensical. Here are two examples. Most Christian drug warriors would agree with their secular comrades that the government should ban drugs because using drugs is addictive. Yet, none of them think the government should prosecute people for partaking in other addictive behaviors like surfing the Internet, having sex, shopping, masturbating, drinking beverages with caffeine, smoking cigarettes, playing video games, viewing porn, eating junk food, watching television, and playing the lottery. Most Christian drug warriors would also agree with their secular comrades that the government should ban drugs because using drugs is dangerous. Yet, none of them think the government should prosecute people for partaking in other dangerous behaviors like skydiving, bungee jumping, coal mining, boxing, mountain climbing, cliff diving, drag racing, MMA fighting, pro wrestling, riding in a hot-air balloon, using a chainsaw, and crossing the street at a busy intersection. The argument that Christians usually add is that using drugs is immoral or sinful. I won’t argue with that. I said at the beginning of this talk that I consider the use of any drug for any reason other than because of a medical necessity to be dangerous, destructive, and immoral. I can add to that now that I regard drug abuse to be a vice, a sin, and an evil that Christians should seek to avoid or pray that they be delivered from if they are caught up in it. The question is whether vice, immorality, and sin should be designated by the state as crimes. As I pointed out just a few minutes ago, libertarians reason that because every crime needs an victim, vices are not crimes. And they are right. There is no support in the New Testament for the idea that Christians should seek legislation to criminalize victimless activities like taking drugs. Just like there is no support in the New Testament for the idea that the state should legislate morality. And just like there is no support in the New Testament for the idea that private sins should be crimes. The burden of proof is on Christian drug warriors. Where did the Apostle Paul, in his travels throughout the Roman Empire, ever express support for any type of legislation or state action against vice, immorality, or sin? He certainly told Christians how they should live their life, and even provided lists of vices, immoral actions, and sins that Christians should avoid. Things like: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, covetousness, anger, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication, effeminacy, idolatry, hatred, strife, reveling, witchcraft, evil speaking, lying, and bitterness. But Paul never expressed a desire for the civil authorities to arrest, fine, or imprison anyone for engaging in these things. And neither do modern Christians. Just like they don’t call for the government to prosecute people for committing one of the seven deadly sins of pride, envy, wrath, sloth, avarice, gluttony, and lust. So what is so special, so egregious, about someone using drugs? At the top of the list of why Christians shouldn’t support the War on Drugs is that, biblically, there is no warrant in the New Testament—the Christian’s rule of faith—for Christians to support a government war on drugs or anything else. And Christians can also agree with libertarians that constitutionally, the federal government has no authority whatsoever to regulate drugs; philosophically, it is not the purpose of government to be a nanny state that monitors the behavior of its citizens; pragmatically, the War on Drugs should be ended because it is a complete and utter failure; practically, the War on Drugs should be ended because of all its injustices and absurdities; financially, the costs of drug prohibition far outweigh any of its supposed benefits; and medically, the War on Drugs is misguided since alcohol is the most harmful, and most abused, drug, and thousands of people die every year from using prescription or over-the-counter drugs. And speaking of alcohol, everything bad that could be said regarding drug abuse could equally be said of alcohol abuse—and even more so. Alcohol abuse is one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the United States. Alcohol abuse can be a contributing factor in cases of cancer, mental illness, anemia, cardiovascular disease, dementia, cirrhosis, high blood pressure, and suppression of the immune system. Alcohol abuse is a factor in many drownings, home accidents, suicides, pedestrian accidents, fires, violent crimes, divorces, boating accidents, child abuse cases, sex crimes, and auto accidents. In fact, the number one killer of young people under twenty-five is alcohol-related car crashes. Numerous studies have shown that smoking marijuana is much safer than drinking alcohol. In fact, a study by the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, ranked alcohol as the “most harmful drug,” beating out heroin, crack cocaine, and ecstasy. Christians are woefully inconsistent, and their arguments hypocritical and unconvincing, when they support the government arresting, fining, and imprisoning people for abusing drugs but not for abusing alcohol. What, then, should be the Christian’s attitude toward those who abuse drugs—legal or illegal? First of all, the Christian should mind his “own business” (1 Thessalonians 4:11) and not be “a busybody in other men’s matters” (1 Timothy 4:15). The great H. L. Mencken famously defined Puritanism as “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” That is the attitude of some Christians. Hey Christian, what business is it of yours if some guy wants to relax after a hard day’s work by smoking a joint? You puritanical prude. You wouldn’t give it a second thought if instead he smoked a pack of cigarettes. I like what C.S. Lewis said about moral busybodies: “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” And second, the Christian should only use persuasion. Persuasion, not coercion. Persuasion, not legislation. Persuasion, not legal action. Persuasion, not threats. Persuasion, not compulsion. Persuasion, not violence. Persuasion, not incarceration. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal” (2 Corinthians 10:4). There are, unfortunately, too many people in the United States—including too many Christians—who want to remake society in their own image and compel others to live only in ways that they approve of. Did you ever notice that there is no shortage of Americans—including no shortage of American Christians—willing to kill for the military, torture for the CIA, wiretap for the FBI, grope for the TSA, and destroy property for the DEA? It is not just libertarians who can appeal to the wisdom of Ludwig von Mises: “He who wants to reform his countrymen must take resource to persuasion. This alone is the democratic way of bringing about changes. If a man fails in his endeavors to convince other people of the soundness of his ideas, he should blame his own disabilities. He should not ask for a law, that is, for compulsion and coercion by the police.” That is the spirit of New Testament Christianity. And Mises was a nonreligious Jew, not a Christian. So, to end this section, it turns out that everything libertarians say about the Drug War is totally and completely true in every respect. Conclusion If the War on Drugs is such a complete and utter failure with financial and human costs that far exceed any of its supposed benefits, then why do so many Americans—and so many American Christians—support it? If the War on Drugs has resulted in so much unnecessary violence, crime, injustice, suffering, corruption, inconvenience, expense, misery, and death, and has ruined more lives than drugs themselves, then why do so many Americans—and so many American Christians—support it? If the War on Drugs violates the Constitution, the principle of federalism, increases the size and scope of government, and is impossible to reconcile with a limited government, then why do so many Americans—and so many American Christians—support it? If the War on Drugs is a war on individual liberty, personal freedom, private property, personal and financial privacy, personal responsibility and accountability, civil liberties, the free market, and a free society, then why do so many Americans—and so many American Christians—support it? Why do so many Americans—and so many American Christians—think that the property of other Americans should be confiscated, and that some of their fellow Americans should be fined, arrested, put on probation, subject to no-knock SWAT team raids, be treated as criminals, or locked in cages for buying, selling, growing, manufacturing, cultivating, processing, distributing, “trafficking in,” using, or possessing some substance the government doesn’t approve of? Simple. They trust the government. And even worse, they trust the evil, lying U.S. government. Most Americans—including most American Christians—have an irrational, illogical, and naive trust in government. Americans who are not firmly committed to the freedom philosophy intuitively and instinctively believe that when there’s a problem the government should do something about it. When there’s a problem, like drug abuse, government action is the best or the only way to solve the problem. They trust the government: I don’t trust the government. As a believer in Jesus Christ, a theological and cultural conservative, a believer in moral absolutes, an adherent to the ethical principles of the New Testament, and a believer in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, I reject the government’s War on Drugs because I believe in the power of religion, persuasion, and education instead of the power of legislation, police, and prisons. Legalize freedom, legalize drugs. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
Admittedly the 'War on Drugs' is a farce and charade. But is it our #1 priority at the moment? A matter of national and personal survival? NO. We are backed up at the edge of the cliff holding on for dear life as the GOPe and Dems are about to give Amnesty to 50 MILLION illegal invaders (to be even more should their families join them.) ALL energy and focus needs to be on THE #1 ISSUE: Rejecting the GOPe nominee for President.
Unfortunately, that's not Deckards agenda. Even if he personally agrees with closing the border, he isn't here on a personal basis. He's here to sell drugs.
Of course certain legit issues bother Decker...you, me, and everyone else here.... But as a matter of absolute *priority* and matter of survival, dwelling on the drug issue doesn't make a lotta sense when so many other CRUCIAL issues (like the possibility of Amnesty for 50 million illegals, the homofascist jihad, and the election of one more GOPe-Dem uni-party patsy conducting business as usual) need attention. We're all entitled to care about other stuff, but yeah -- some pet-issues just have to be put on the back-burner.
I see no reason to pander to the dopers. Libertarians seem to be utterly worthless, they have parts of the globe which exist as a the anarchist Nirvana's they crave, but for some odd reason you do not see them moving to Somalia or the tribal areas of Pakistan. If the dopers had gotten behind securing the borders of the West, and Western civilization, I might have been able to see a way to accommodate them. They're all about getting their dope, the best argument I can see for drug legalization is the possibility that a lot more of them would OD and die. Chlorine in the gene pool.
There are some positions besides the extremes on the issue of drugs. I don't see the sense and priority of dying on Pot Hill. If there are legit medicinal reasons for any drug, I support it, but *most* of these pot/drug supporters are selfish anarchists. Libertarians. More selfishness. Some conservatives arguably are "libertarian" on certain issues for sure. But to be purely "Libertarian" (capital "L") is to make EVERYTHING relative, committing to NO absolute "right" or "wrong" position. That is the very definition of "Anarchist."
There are no replies to Comment # 14. End Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|