Donald Trump

Frederick Douglass Would Have Ardently Supported Milo Yiannopoulos's Free Speech Rights

Frederick Douglass was an ardent defender of free speech, a principle dismissed by Berkeley protesters and rioters and their apologists.

|

This week the leftish Twittersphere and liberal comment sites went wild for two stories. The first, that President Donald Trump doesn't seem to know who Frederick Douglass was. The second, that those Berkeley students and non-Berkeley anarchists who shut down the Milo Yiannaopolous meeting might not have done such a bad thing. Okay, a mob silenced Milo, people tweeted and intoned, but perhaps that's okay in the anti-Trump fightback.

It's almost unbearably ironic. Because if these critics of Trump themselves knew anything about Douglass, they'd know he was implacably opposed to using mob pressure to shut down public meetings. They'd know he valued free speech so highly, above all other values, that he thought no one should ever be "overawed by force" simply for what he thinks and says. Imagine: in one breath mocking Trump for not knowing who Douglass was, and in the next saying things that will have made Douglass spin in his grave.

The mocking of Trump followed his comments marking Black History Month, on Wednesday morning. He praised Dr. Martin Luther King, Harriet Tubman, and Frederick Douglass, before going on to talk about matters closer to his heart: himself and how much he hates CNN.

But it seems he doesn't know much about Douglass, the slave turned abolitionist and suffrage campaigner who wrote brilliantly in defence of free speech and the right to bear arms. He was fleeting in his praise of Douglass, and his wording seemed to suggest he thinks Douglass is still alive (he died in 1895.)

The headlines and snark came flying. "Trump implied Frederick Douglass was alive," the Washington Post laughed. "Seth Meyers roasts Trump for being too lazy to Google whether Frederick Douglass is still alive," said a headline over a video of Seth Meyers doing exactly that. Cue millions of shares.

All of which is fine, of course, and funny in fact. Trump really ought to know about Douglass. Someone should have briefed him. But then the same political sphere that came over all pro-Douglass as a way of meming against the President—right-on tweeters, the left-leaning web—started to wonder out loud if it's such a bad thing that Milo was silenced at Berkeley. Which is about as anti-Douglass a thing as you could say.

"Milo Yiannopoulos is trying to convince colleges that hate speech is cool," CNN cried. When Trump tweeted that perhaps Berkeley should have its federal funding cut if it won't stand up for free speech, The Advocate accused him of "defending hate speech." The mayor of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin, implicitly sided with the protesters against freedom of speech when he said: "Hate speech isn't welcome in our community." In short, let's cleanse Berkeley of certain, dangerous ideas; let's make it a Milo- and alt-right-free zone.

The celeb set also welcomed the shutting down of Milo's meet. "RESISTANCE WORKS!", tweeted Debra Messing. As Heat Street said, "vocal members of the progressive left took to social media" to celebrate Milo's silencing, "dubbing it a legitimate resistance movement against the Trump administration."

This cheering, or at least failure to challenge, the heavy-handed prevention of political chatter at Berkeley is a far bigger snub to Douglass and everything he stood for than Trump's Black History comments were. Indeed, anyone who knows anything about Douglass will know that one of the most stirring, moving things he ever wrote was a criticism of the shutting down of public meetings by mobs.

On 2 December 1860, at the Tremont Temple in Boston, anti-slavery activists held a meeting called "How Shall Slavery Be Abolished?". Douglass was there. To his horror, a group of pro-slavery people—Douglass called them "a mob of gentlemen"—disrupted the meeting. They screamed insults at the attendees, took over the room, drowned out anyone who tried to speak. They pushed the attendees about. Douglass was most alarmed by the failure of the mayor of Boston to protect the meeting. The gathering was "broken up and dispersed by the order of the mayor, who refused to protect it, though called upon to do so", he wrote. This brings to mind Mayor Arreguin's craven response to the Berkeley fiasco.

In response to this illiberal violence, Douglass wrote an article titled "A Plea for Free Speech in Boston." It is one of the best things ever written about free speech. He said the intrusion and stopping of the meeting was "a palpable and flagrant outrage on the right of speech." He said it had "trampled under foot" the "law of free speech and the law for the protection of public meetings." And then, in words that echo down the decades, he spelled out why freedom of speech is so important:

"Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence."

This is probably Douglass's most important legacy: his argument that free speech underpins all liberty; that the freedom to think and speak and organise is the precursor to any kind of progress. And it is this legacy that is shot down by those who argue that using pressure or threats or speech codes to shut down controversial speakers is acceptable behaviour.

Sure, the men meeting in Boston 150 years ago were discussing something incredibly important and good—how to abolish slavery—while Milo's meeting would largely have consisted of provocateur ridicule. But so what? As Douglass said in that article, all people, whatever their thoughts or station, should enjoy freedom of speech: "There can be no right of speech where any man, however lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments."

So yes, of course Trump should know who Douglass was—I hope someone has since given him a copy of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Douglass's profound autobiography. But in continually compelling people to suppress their honest sentiments, in "overawing by force" those they disagree with, in thinking it is acceptable to use pressure or law or rules to prevent the holding of public meetings, too much of the modern left does an even greater disservice to Douglass. They forget his plea to humanity to remember that liberty is meaningless where people's right to utter their thoughts has ceased to exist.

NEXT: Kellyanne Conway Admits Bowling Green Massacre Mistake, Chelsea Clinton Gets 'Edgy': P.M. Links

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. In before Republicans start crying again about how Reason doesn’t favor Republicans enough.

    Or maybe this will be the one thread that doesn’t get overrun with that shit.

    Probably not.

    1. I don’t need reason to “favor Republicans”.

      I just need them to stop advocating progressivism.

      1. !!SAME THING!!
        /retard above

        1. Nope.

          1. wasn’t referencing you, was alluding to first person

            1. Is this Gilmore or Gllmore? Or Glimore? Or Giimore?

    2. I just want them to say: “violence over speech is illiberal”

      And that’s it. No fucking virtue signaling. No ‘to be sures’. Anything less is not liberal, let alone libertarian.

      They keep allowing the fascistic Left to label everyone they oppose as Nazis. Even McInnis (who Matt Welch was on his podcast with just two weeks ago). Soon they will be labeled Nazis themselves.

      1. hey these violent terrorists are bad, BUT YOU KNOW, THOSE OTHER PEOPLE ARE BAD TOO!

        Fuck the virtue signalling. Violence over Free Speech is incompatible with a free society. That’s all. No qualifiers, no buts, no nothing.

        1. Makes me wonder sometimes if they got the first two amendments out of order.

          1. Amendments have nothing to do with their actions.

      2. Mr. Douglas would be called an Oreo by todays progressives.

        1. MLK as well, because of his radical idea that people should not be judged by the color of their skin. Nowadays that’s equivalent to white supremacy.

          1. Channelllng The Trumpster… “Frederick Douglass and I are good buds, we were chatting just the other day…”

            Hey Man, cut the Trumpster a BREAK already, willya? The Donald was referring to his past lifetime minus two or three! Four lifetimes ago, I used to try and talk some sense to Abe Lincoln, who just would NOT listen to me! Ya gonna call me crazy as well!?!?!?

            (Trumpster sees a past-lives regression hypnotist regularly, so cut him a break for that,please).

            1. Trump hangs out regularly with the Ghost of Ben Franklin, where they discuss nudity, farting, and banging foreign chicks.

      3. The antifa psychos already consider libertarians fascists and Nazis who mask their racism with a fiscal responsibility supposed fake out. Try carrying a sign advocating school choice or privatization of federal lands or the downsizing of the welfare state to an event where they’re going nuts and see if you don’t get your skull caved in

        1. I’ve long said that fascism will come to the US in the form of mobs who see themselves as resisting fascism.

          I blame Hollywood in many ways, and Spielberg specifically. He’s spent a career stripping Nazism of any content other than “bad guys.”

          1. This movie is a great example. IMO, Hitler would have loved this movie.

            1. I remember really hating that but I’m afraid I don’t remember precisely why, and I don’t remember it very well at all. Glancing over the synopsis I’m assuming it’s because of some anti-technology, anti-industrial-civilization message.

            2. Fun fact: some Marxist critic claimed that in Jaws the shark represented the threat posed by the proletariat to bourgeoise capitalism. As opposed to the much simpler ‘man vs. nature’ theme.

              I’m drunk.

          2. I’ve long said that fascism will come to the US in the form of mobs who see themselves as resisting fascism.

            Didn’t Alexis de Toqueville say something very much like that almost two centuries ago?

    3. Lol. Love the name.

    4. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

      =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  2. Excuse me, that wasn’t a mob. They were not protesters or rioters, they were terrorists. And they should be treated as such.

    Dictionary.com – Terrorism

    #1 – the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

    1. I wouldn’t define terrorism down so far that it is inclusive of riots even if the strictest possible interpretation of the dictionary definition allows for it. Rioting, assault, battery and vandalism are sufficient to the task.

    2. Rioters, sure. Terrorists? No. That’s insipid.

      If you’d object to calling US bombers in Japan in WW2 or Vietnam terrorists, then you can’t go around calling some idiots burning down a tree terrorists.

    3. Given a visa?

  3. Fredrick Douglass might, Dalia wouldn’t

  4. Add the fact he was extremely supportive of the 2A, I’m surprised they bring his name up at all.

    1. You give them too much credit. You think they know he was pro 2A? Nope. You think they know he was a champion of free speech over all else? Nope.

      All they know is that Trump displayed the same general ignorance of his life, beyond knowing he was a slave at some point, that they do. Except that they didn’t have their ignorance manifest on national television. So they feign indignance, pretending to be outraged about this great injustice, purely because it’s easy to so when nobody is holding them accountable for their own hypocritical ignorance, and they are already angry anyway and just looking for any excuse to talk shit about someone they hate, regardless of whether he says something stupid or takes a month-long vow of silence.

  5. Frederick “Uncle Tom” Douglass?

  6. Frederick Douglass, I love that guy! I wonder what he’ll do next!

    1. He’s done great work and people are really starting to notice.

  7. When has the left hit out for the speech rights of those whose viewpoints are a threat to their own? When have they stood up in defense of their ideological enemy’s right to participate in the market of ideas? Generally, progressives know so certainly that their thinking is correct that anything else is misinformation, a false narrative to be tamped down, snuffed out by any means necessary.

    But really it’s not Trump’s fault they put Black History Month so close to his getting-stuff-done week. Who has the time to look up the details of every person speechwriters cram into your comments?

    1. FoE: Sigh. If only Trump would actually heed his speechwriters instead rambling on like a proverbial drunk uncle when he talks.

      1. Whatever his virtues or his vices, we’d better get used to his style. Which approaches quantum weirdness.

      2. Are you also going to say that when Joe Biden is elected in 2020 too?

        Also, hi Ron!

      3. I like drunk uncles….at least they are real. Who needs some choreographed BS? We’re big kids. We can take it.

    2. If only your coworker would heed the advice of Douglass, instead of excusing away political violence.

      Trump does sound like a senile man

      1. If only your coworker

        Are you referring to Shikha or Robby?

        1. They’re not the same person?

  8. in one breath mocking Trump for not knowing who Douglass was, and in the next saying things that will have made Douglass spin in his grave.

    Yeah, but MLK was a big 2A supporter and believed people should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

    Only one thing about these men is important to Progressives, and it is clearly not their ideas.

  9. And it is this legacy that is shot down by those who argue that using pressure or threats or speech codes to shut down controversial speakers is acceptable behaviour.

    Like Shikha Dalmia

    shikha sood dalmia ?@shikhadalmia Feb 2
    More
    Honest condemnation of #Berkley violence must also condemn those who invited him.What’s point except baiting n inciting in Trump’s America?

    shikha sood dalmia ?@shikhadalmia 4h4 hours ago
    More
    No matter what the moral rot on the left, the right always manages to outdo it! Sad!

    shikha sood dalmia ?@shikhadalmia 26m26 minutes ago
    More
    When facts are always “alternative,” brute force is all that’s left in settling with intellectual opponents!

    1. The LA Times is better on free speech.
      http://www.latimes.com/opinion…..story.html

      1. wow that was a really good article… and it’s from the LA Times?

        And it has more sense than a senior reason writer?

        What the hell is going on here?

        1. That was my reaction too. Maybe there are some actual small ‘l’ liberals on the left after all?
          At any rate, “Good on ya LA Times”.

    2. shikha sood dalmia ?@shikhadalmia 26m26 minutes ago
      More
      When facts are always “alternative,” brute force is all that’s left in settling with intellectual opponents!

      Jesus christ, I had to check if that tweet was real. Shikha is literally advocating violence against speech. She really needs to go. Not surprisingly, deranged stalker Kizone Kaprow is trying to call out the commenters for objecting to that.

      This is what makes the left so scary. They are so utterly convinced that their delusional world view is the correct one that there’s nothing to discuss, only thing left to do is force people to fall in line. Why do you think Communism keeps coming back? Because public schools teach revisionist history and make peculiar omissions.

      1. Because public schools teach revisionist history and make peculiar omissions.

        I think you mean ‘particular’. When looked at from a lefty vantage point, there’s nothing peculiar about them at all.

        1. Wasn’t sure if that was the right word, but you know what I mean.

      2. Apparently just allowing people to be wrong in peace is not an option? The left is entitled to have its views not only heard, but accepted, by whatever means.

        1. It is our holy duty to smite the heretics that blaspheme against the True Faith!

          Those who believe the in the Cult of the State can no more leave people to be wrong in peace than the Inquisition could stand by and let heretics endanger their immortal souls.

      3. Same theocratic tendency to conflate ‘wrong’ with ‘illegal.’ Being wrong or even lying is not illegal and doesn’t warrant a violent response. Some never mature past early puberty and therefore never comprehend that.

        1. Hey, that was uncalled for, body-shaming shitlord.

          Everyone else: Zimas and Penthouses tonight at my house! Bring lots of girls.

    3. Frederick Douglas would NOT have ardently supported Shikha…

    4. Ah yes, recycling the old “you shouldn’t have been wearing that short of a skirt” argument.

      I’m done; the above goes against a fundamental tenet of my worldview and I can no longer support Reason Foundation in good conscience.

      Sincerely,
      Pavel Malik

    5. Please fire Shikha…it’s easy enough to find anti-libertarian view points elsewhere. BTW, who the fuck interviewed her anyway?!

  10. Holy shit. I’m a Nazi-sympathizer now. At least I’m in good company.

    1. Hey, Carl Orff, Martin Heidegger, Werner Heisenberg. Good companies indeed.

      1. *good company.

        1. What about Hugo Boss, Coco Chanel, Ford, etc.? Good company and good companies!

  11. It’s almost unbearably ironic. Because if these critics of Trump themselves knew anything about Douglass, they’d know he was implacably opposed to using mob pressure to shut down public meetings. They’d know he valued free speech so highly, above all other values, that he thought no one should ever be “overawed by force” simply for what he thinks and says.

    Come on, Brandon. You should understand

    a) He’d have understood that when all facts are fake, the violence is correct response
    b) He’d understand that the problem is these people play right into hands of vile, loathsome speakers

    Shape up or you’ll remain the sometimes-contributor forever!

    1. Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked in London.

      Demand to see his green card – Reason’s probably smuggling in illegal immigrant articles and calling them “refugee posts”.

      1. No, that’s importing product. Now, if there’s gonna be a tariff, Brendan is screwed. But Farage is gonna fix that.

  12. So fire Dalmia and hire this Douglass fellow

    1. *sigh* And no mechanism to give “upvotes” or “points” or whatever…

  13. Certain Reason writers would not defend free speech. They would rather defend violent thugs or virtue signal around the issue, to be sure.

    What a pathetic rag that calls itself ‘libertarian’.

    P.S. I love O’Neil and Spiked.com. They actually defend free speech

    1. P.S. I love O’Neil and Spiked.com. They actually defend free speech

      Yes, and they do it while being actual leftists. I probably disagree with them more than Reason pre-2017, but they are always worth a read.

      Their comments are worse than ours on our worst day, though.

      1. Yeah, it use to be a Marxist publication. But they’re one of the few liberal publications on Left

        1. Used to be Living Marxism, the mouthpiece of a small, kind of culty 70s-England-style Trotskyist faction, the Revolutionary Communist Party. Like many radical outfits, they were “led Right” by their leadership in the late 20th century; uniquely, they were led into a libertarian bent instead of neofascism, neoconservatism like the Shachtmanites, or so forth. The big turning point was early opposition to Heathrow expansion, which they regarded as reactionary Luddism. (They love transportation and loathe environmentalism, with the fervor of Secretary Watt fucking a Captain Planet villain on a bed of Lyndon LaRouche pamphlets; I commend the spirit but think their fanaticism often blinds them to the waste and real damage of some truly bad policy.)

          Nowadays they have this and a few other quirks, such as a fanatical pro-Moscow bent (though, having never gone through conventional left-libertarian radicalism, they are free of its conventional quirks like “intersectionality”-style P.C. identity culture and fixation with Israel), but are otherwise pretty, often uniquely, awesome. Constant rants on lefty college culture, speech policing, E.U., surveillance, nanny statism…

          1. …Their comments can sometimes indeed get shitty, but not in any “leftist” way. More in attracting culture warrior types, with sometimes a hint of race realism and such. Same for the British and Aussie Spectator, which I also like. Try going on one of those sites and suggesting that maybe the bobbies shouldn’t start ripping headscarves off women in the street.

      2. they do it while being actual leftists.

        Its interesting that a “Principled Leftist” a la Glenn Greenwald or O’Neill are probably worth 10X what any squishy-faux-libertarian is

        I’d rather the mag actually included non-libertarian voices which argued vociferously and honestly for a principled position than give more column-space to the same old cosmoprogtarian gibberish we’ve gotten used to.

        iow, ditch chapman, dalmia, soave, give more space to outside writers from both right AND left. Which is actually stuff they’ve generally done in the past, but i haven’t seen much of lately.

        1. Isn’t Chapman an outsider?

          (I agree with wider variety of non-libertarian voices; I’ve always felt that. Current regular guests are too narrow and the worst–and most regular–are not very insightful.)

    2. The rag that just published O’Neil’s piece on free speech?

  14. “I think there’s contributions ? I think he wants to highlight the contributions that he has made,” Spicer said of Trump’s reference to Douglass. “And I think through a lot of the actions and statements that he’s going to make, I think the contributions of Frederick Douglass will become more and more.”

    I defy you to tell me from that whether Sean Spicer thinks Douglass is alive or dead. I’ve listened to Trump talk and I can’t tell what the hell he means by anything he says. He’s far worse than Bush ever was in mixing his metaphors in the middle of the stream, the splitting of a lot of times his infinitives thing, mixes his verb tenses quite a few times before, uses impervious words and phrases where you’re not quite sure he knows what they mean, and so forth and like that.

  15. Douglass has long been a libertarian hero. I think his birthday was marked on the libertarian calendar that SIL put out in the 70s. As was the ass-kicking the Indians gave the terrorist 7th cavalry at Little Big Horn.

  16. Holy shit, an article about Milo that doesn’t include groan inducing equivocation on reason! What a novel idea!

    1. To be sure, because it’s not from Reason

      1. To be sure, because it’s not from Reason

        I see what you there

  17. This is one of the many reasons why “liberaltarianism” and “left-libertarian alliances” are non-starters. The left is all too willing to cut the free-speech baby in half, because it really isn’t their baby after all.

    As for:

    Sure, the men meeting in Boston 150 years ago were discussing something incredibly important and good?how to abolish slavery?while Milo’s meeting would largely have consisted of provocateur ridicule.

    There were lots of people 150 years ago who considered abolitionist preachings to be “provocateur ridicule,” just as sincerely as many people today consider Milo’s speech to be “provocateur ridicule.” For that matter abolitionist speech and writings back then did include a great deal of provocateur ridicule. We just endorse it today because today we see it as provocateur ridicule in a just cause.

  18. So… I hate to be that guy, but is Trump pulling a Trump here? Say something stupid about some subject, instantly forcing leftists to go learn and talk about that subject in order to prove him wrong? How many people started to actually read Frederick Douglass’s words because of this? Maybe a few started questioning their beliefs.

    1. No. I think this is simply Trump’s critics making something out of nothing at all.

  19. Has Radley Balko called Frederick Douglas an asshole yet?

  20. Why can’t Trump have some fun with the Clery Act?

    Campus cops have to maintain a crime log of all crimes reported to them, the nature and location of the crimes, and the resolution of each complaint.

    Have Trump supporters call in every incident of vandalism, assault, failure to disperse, etc. during these riots, then Trump can send his crack team of investigators to make sure these complaints were duly logged. If there’s a long line of “pending” or “closed” complaints, publicize that and say the college administrators are a bunch of cucks who have gone soft on rioters.

    If the crime log is incomplete and doesn’t reflect the riot-related complaints, impose a civil fine on the university.

  21. And here’s a fun thing Congress can do – if riots on campus get so bad the campus cops can’t handle them, then the expense of bringing in outside cops, national guard, etc., will be deducted from the university’s federal aid.

    1. The university would be able to apply to get its money back, but only if it proves that it acted vigorously, to the utmost limit of its resources, to counteract the rioters, including kicking them off campus.

  22. The Advocate has forgotten what it was like to have no voice. They are the abuser now. They disrespect their history and all those that hard fought for their 1st Amendment rights. The young have no memory, no respect, no gratitude.

    1. I am pretty sure The Advocate sold out in the mid 1980s. I understand it was once an underground zine, but I am pretty sure it’s been the thick glossy number with virtue-signaling straight celebrities on its front cover that you buy with your croissant at Barnes and Noble for more than a quarter century now. In Touch is probably a more authentic manifestation of gay culture at this point.

  23. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  24. I’m not sure that Frederick Douglass would even have disagreed with Milo much on content: Douglass was a gun-toting Republican after all.

  25. Of course ol’ Frederick would defend Milo’s right to free speech. However, I believe Fred would also conclude that Milo is a dick.

    1. Milo would be too busy trying to get on ol’ Frederick’s dick to give a shit.

  26. I would be absolutely unsurprised if Donald Trump has no clue who Frederick Douglass is. Obviously I could be wrong but Trump doesn’t seem much of a historian in the classic sense. He probably doesn’t know who Marie Curie, John Locke or Harriet Tubman are either. He’s Donald Trump not a man of letters.

    But perhaps the only thing more comical than the President or perhaps his spokesman not knowing anything about Douglass is the white liberal blogosphere who pretends that they do.

    1. Are you suggesting they are ignorant of the most basic Civil War history? Come on! Everyone has heard of the fellow who defeated Abe Lincoln in the Senate debates and lost to him two years later for the White House. Didn’t know he was part black, though. Pretty fucking surprising if you ask me.

  27. I’ve never listened to the Brietbart twinkie but evidently somebody is scared of him. Does that qualify as homophobia?

    1. He’s a British Jew with a Greek name who was raised Roman Catholic. He is smarter and better informed than nearly any journalist but by his own admission has absolutely no real interest in politics. His schtick is going around talking about how handsome he is, how much he loves dick but only black dick (though his boyfriend is a Muslim middle-easterner), and just generally any outrageous thing that gets people’s attention. Probably more fun for hanging out with than anything else.

  28. I am a visible minority, immigrant, New Yorker; identify as liberal, Muslim-friendly, pro-refugee, etc. I didn’t vote for Trump and think the travel ban is panicked, bad policy. But holy shit that Shikha Dalmia twitter feed is a fucking travesty. She seems like a fucking deranged person.

  29. Protesting is just as much a right as Milo’s right to speak. Please don’t lump the angry but peaceful protestors in with the violence and cancellation. This is often what bothers the left about the right — they confuse criticism for fascism and think they have the right to express their opinion without anyone else having the right to criticize it.

  30. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ============
    ———>>>>>>>> http://www.earnwithstyle.com

  31. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  32. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  33. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  34. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  35. I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that…my… father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to website

    =============================== http://www.cash-review.com

  36. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    ========== http://www.net.pro70.com

  37. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbor told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do>>

    ======== http://www.centerpay70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.