Charlottesville

Virginia Governor Responds to Violence with Temporary Protest Ban in Richmond

No more public gathering around a handful of Confederate monuments until the government can make more rules.

|

Lee statue
Chuck Myers/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Eyewitness reports on the ground at the Charlottesville, Virginia, protest indicate that the police did not do a very good job of keeping the sides physically separated. There's no good excuse for why this happened; we know full well at this point that people with violent or otherwise disruptive plans are embedding themselves inside large political protests like these.

But Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe seems bent on the idea that there's some bigger, grander explanation, and so now he's temporarily banning any and all protests at the statue of General Robert E. Lee in Richmond, Virginia.

All of it! Until the government can best figure out how to regulate you people and all those messy ideas you insist on expressing. McAuliffe makes it very clear in his statement and the executive action he signed on Friday that the problem is you:

Reviewing the events in Charlottesville to determine what steps can and should be taken to prevent any such violence from occurring again is critically necessary for public safety and demands a full review of permitting processes and other relevant regulations. There are already, and it is anticipated that there will be more, permit requests for demonstrations at the Lee Monument as the public debate over Confederate monuments continues, leaving grave risks for future civil unrest. Until a full review process has been concluded, it is a threat to public safety to allow permit-requiring activity to occur in the absence of such sensible regulations that should be implemented to govern all expressive activity at the Lee Monument, no matter its content.

"No matter its content." The executive order forbids any protests at the Lee monument and any permits for protests to express any positions or views whatsoever, "engaged in by one or more persons." No flags, no signs, no banners. He does not care whether there are counterprotesters or the possibility of confrontations. You are not allowed to express opinions loudly around the Lee monument, and you can face trespassing charges if you defy him.

McAuliffe is calling for a "task force" that will have three entire months to come up with the appropriate "regulations" to manage protests at this monument.

Coincidentally, during this period of deep government reflection on what it might take to keep people from hitting each other at protests, Richmond is deciding whether to remove its Confederate statues. The mayor of the city announced last week that he would like to see them gone. The city may make a decision on whether to do so in September. You'd have to be extremely naïve not to realize that McAuliffe's order prevents protesting at the site of controversy until after the decision has been made.

We should be terribly concerned whenever governments censor and suppress public debate because of the inconveniences it presents to law and order.

We already see this on public college campuses. Any whiff of violence is used to cancel speakers, which incentivizes people to see the possibility of violence when speakers they don't like come to town. As we also have seen, college campuses will use the cost or inconvenience of having to protect speakers as an excuse to shut down an event.

Don't be surprised if additional officials attempt to replicate what McAuliffe is trying to do here: use the excuse of public safety to shut down protests. We recently saw Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) say outright that it's too expensive and unreasonable for college police forces to protect protesters from violence.

A core role of the police in the United States is to protect citizens' rights to assemble freely and protest safely. If the police have to spend a day keeping two sides apart, that's not some "distraction" from their jobs. It is one of the reasons we have police at all. Protecting life, liberty, and property is not just about fighting crime and catching crooks. It's also about making sure citizens are safely able to express their civil liberties without somebody throwing bricks at their head or beating them with a stick.

McAuliffe's order is so broad, it would authorize the cops to remove a harmless street preacher if some passers-by started arguing with him. This goes far beyond preventing harm into shutting down merely inconvenient behavior, using the government's own failure to properly protect people as an excuse.

NEXT: We Are Not on the Verge of a New Civil War

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. “We have to stop these protests until we figure out what’s going on.”

    1. Lemme guess… Ah! George Waffen Bush, 2008, baffled by the market crash and economic collapse caused by prohibitionist asset-forfeiture confiscations.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6bmEv2-rFA
      Amirite?

  2. Terry McAullife is a complete weasel. A Clinton operative rewarded with a governorship.

    1. But you reapeat yourself.

      1. Touche.

    2. Terry McAullife is a complete weasel. A Clinton operative rewarded with a governorship.

      Yep-hence why he wants to shut down any protests over the statues. The Antifa antics are a liability for the democrats and Virginians will be voting for a new governor, AG, and state delegates in November. How convenient that the ban on protests extends past election day.

  3. As we also have seen, college campuses will use the cost or inconvenience of having to protect speakers as an excuse to shut down an event.

    These people aren’t stupid. The last thing they want is to risk Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, or Milo becoming an actual martyr, since they’d likely lose whatever federal funding they’re getting at the very least, and the entire administration and faculty getting fired en masse or the school shut down at worst.

  4. and that’s what you should expect from a DNC Slimeball turned governor

    1. DNC Slimeball turned governor spineless politician.

    2. Call me crazy, but it seems like the response by the governor would have been a better focus over the past week than spending all that article space talking about how bad Nazis are. I guess useful idiots have to be useful

      1. Yeah. More important to attack a group that has been irrelevant since April 1945 as opposed to governors and mayors allowing some protestors to be attacked by others if they do not like the protestors involved.

        Oh, to avoid condemnation — Nazis are bad, mmkay?

        1. The first thing I said is the governor is a tool, but apparently the first thing everyone else thought was ‘how dare Trump’. No idea why, but Terry is apparently super lucky that Trump is absorbing all blame for all things in todays political climate.

          Although at one point does a protest become a riot? It seems that’s a good question to ask these days. Ferguson was just a protest, so I’m guessing the bar is set impossibly high even though some outlets had the balls to call them riots months later, finally.

          1. Trump deserved condemnation. I’m not knocking anyone for doing that. The president does have a checkered history on race.

            1. He does? How?

            2. WakaWaka, Trump spoke the truth and did not deserve condemnation. If you disagree, please tell why. Lemmings in this country have gotten so used to bowing to the leftist agenda, they can’t think and observe for themselves and blindly parrot anything coming out of the left-leaning media.

              1. He attempted to speak the truth, but President Bachman just can’t resist slapping his testicles down on the table in the middle of even the most delicate discussions.

                “The Truth” is that there has been a rash of politically motivated violence this year, and it should all be condemned. To blame the entire right wing for what happened at Charlottesville is no better than blaming the entire left wing for the Scalise shooting.

                But Trump supporters tend to hear what they wish he had said, not what he actually said.

                His tirade on Wednesday didn’t even acknowledge the point I just made – he just took the already-tortured Breitbart narrative and used it as a new jumping-off point to try to portray Charlottesville as being just like Berkeley. The “all sides are equally to blame” stance was idiotic, incompetently tone-deaf, and just plain lazy. The rational point would have been “don’t blame whole groups for isolated acts of violence by fringe lunatics.”

                I get that he attempted to accurately point out that there has been violence from left, as well, but due to his utter incompetence as a politician and a person he was unable to frame that in any way other than “Us vs. Them” where “Us” was well-meaning Nazis who were being treated unfairly.

                1. you forget that he roundly condemned the “nazis” in that same speech. It has since then been discovered that the ringleader of the “permitted” demonstration has a solid history of leadership in the “Occupy: movement and violent protests, and at least one significant anti-Trump protest last November. He is no “rightwing” operative.

                2. The “all sides are equally to blame” stance was idiotic, incompetently tone-deaf, and just plain lazy.

                  He said he condemned violence on all sides. There was violence that needed condemning on all sides. He said there was blame on all sides. There was blame that needed calling out on all sides. He did not say it was equal, and denied he was “[utting them o the same moral plane” when asked. If a murderer gets his rights violated at trial I guess you would be on the internet attacking people for equivocating murder with whatever the DA is accused of?

                  Antifa is openly and unapologetically behaving like a terrorist group and their demands are simple: to limit freedom of speech. And they are getting their demands met, by the way, if you haven’t been paying attention.

              2. I’m not saying that he was wrong to note that antifa is a violent group (although, I do find it disturbing that so many are eager to ignore antifa’s violence or pretend like their illiberal string of violence and attempts to silence speakers since the election has not occurred), but I do think that the president’s unwillingness to specifically name white supremacists, along with his previous refusal to disavow David Duke during the primaries is troubling. Then, of course, there is that time he once took out a newspaper advertisement in New York calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty after a rape in central park (with the alleged defendants being young black men). The accused were later found to be innocent and the president never apologized (that’s Al Sharpton level of sleaze). And the fact that the president is so quick to note Islamic terrorist attacks, but this time he wanted to have ‘all the information’.

                I don’t believe the president is a bigot- I just think he’s an ignorant man. You should get called out for being ignorant.

                1. his calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty is valid no matter who the alledged assailants were. No apologies necessary. HOW is that some level lf sleaze?
                  The islamist terror attacks were pretty easy to figure out quickly. Shouting certain words just before, and during, attacking people with knives and/or cars is a pretty good indicator. In the case of Charlottesville, it has taken a couple weeks for the truth of WHO were involved to come out….. that “neonazi” group with the “permit” were no white supremacists, nor were they right wing conservatives or even “alt right”,whatever THAT means. Ignorance? On whose part?

                2. *sigh* Trump did not “refus[e] to disavow David Duke during the primaries”. Actually, he did that a lot, he just didn’t want to talk about it on one well known occasion, as the first question after winning a primary, but he’d done it just the day before.

                  Don’t get everything you learn about the Central Park Jogger case from Ken Burns.They weren’t “alleged defendants”. They were defendants. They were factually guilty, there was confessions and convincing physical evidence, and they were convicted. No, “later found to be innocent” is nonsense. The victim was also raped by someone else (probably afterwards, when already comatose), who eventually confessed while in prison for murder, but the idea that his semen cleared the pack of beating and raping her is nonsensical.

      2. Never mistake Terry McAuliffe for a useful idiot.

  5. Eat that, freedom of speech!

  6. A core role of the police in the United States is to protect citizens’ rights to assemble freely and protest safely. If the police have to spend a day keeping two sides apart, that’s not some “distraction” from their jobs. It is one of the reasons we have police at all. Protecting life, liberty, and property is not just about fighting crime and catching crooks. It’s also about making sure citizens are safely able to express their civil liberties without somebody throwing bricks at their head or beating them with a stick.

    What are these “civil liberties” of what you speak?

    1. Anything that doesn’t involve seizure of proceeds of crime can be considered a distraction to an immoral chief of police.

    2. Let’s try a few here:

      Freedom of speech
      Freedom to peaceably assemble
      Freedom to petition government for redress of grievance
      Freedom to associate with whomever you please
      freedom to move about in the public sphere freely.

      Start with those, and let me know when we’ve got them all unfettered with stupid stuff like Mother May I Papers, lines painted on the ground, barricades, curfews, “expression zones”, etc.

  7. Eyewitness reports on the ground at the Charlottesville, Virginia, protest indicate that the police did not do a very good job of keeping the sides physically separated. There’s no good excuse for why this happened

    Sure there is – those officers needed to go home safe that night.

    1. Hey, two of them in a Helicopter didn’t go home that night. That’s enough cost for an entire decade. All police in Virginia will be getting paid time off until 2027.

    2. So did the demonstrators, but the cops signed up for the job knowing the risks…. and, it seems, with a predetermined agenda to allow any such biolence to “get out of hand” to help make a point for their Guvnr. It does seem rather evident that those dirty coppers carefully directed the one (permitted) group directly into the waiting gathering of the non-permitted group. A set up, little doubt.

  8. Eyewitness reports on the ground at the Charlottesville, Virginia, protest indicate that the police did not do a very good job of keeping the sides physically separated. There’s no good excuse for why this happened; we know full well at this point that people with violent or otherwise disruptive plans are embedding themselves inside large political protests like these.

    We should draw a line and then vet everyone outside the line, possibly extremely.

    Also, on an unrelated point, has anyone even looked into pulling ISIS or the Taliban’s parade permits?

    1. Well of course we need to draw a line, that’s how we keep things civilized.

  9. Richmond is deciding whether to remove its Confederate statues.

    While they’re at it, maybe they should take down that statue of Arthur Ashe beating some children with a book and a tennis racket, because that’s just disrespectful to the man’s memory.

    1. I will fight to the death for that statue to remain, just as I fought to the death for my beloved Lucille Ball statue.

      1. Your link is as busted as the Lucy statue’s face. As for me, i’m more of a Monkey Christ guy.

        1. I can only assume the link doesn’t work because the Lucille Ball statue was changed. Thus, I am likely a ghost.

        1. God damn, that looks like a good dog. Damn good dog.

    2. Maybe those kids were asking for it.

    3. The true beauty of that statue is that it was banished from the Ashe Center (for being so horrible) and the city effectively dumped it on Monument Ave, thus giving you the performance art triumph (if you’re driving east) of Confederate general, Confederate general, Confederate general, and a black guy beating kids with a tennis racket.

  10. You are not allowed to express opinions loudly around the Lee monument, and you can face trespassing charges if you defy him

    Poor Terry just wants to sleep. Poor bby 🙁

    1. Give him the prescription of Dr. Guillotine, and let him sleep eternally.

      1. Dear Preet,

        CSP is joking. Promise.

        1. He was fired by Trump. I think we’re safe for now.

    2. At least when he’s sleeping he’s not issuing dumbass executive actions.

  11. I’m sure that mob in Boston has quite a few Mayors nervous. Boston is prepared for that sort of thing. Other cities maybe not so much.

    1. Anonymous vandalism is an incredibly weak form of protest. Though, there’s a lot of stupid self-righteousness going on in general.

    2. The Baltimore City Council last year considered renaming Columbus Day as “Indigenous Peoples’ and Italian-Americans’ Day.”

      “On this day we celebrate all of those things in our country’s history that have to do with both indigenous peoples and Italian-Americans, but not with Christopher Columbus, who was a genocidal terrorist. And we have chosen this day, the anniversary of Italian Christopher Columbus’ arrival in and opening of trade routes to the New World to celebrate all of those things having to do with indigenous peoples, and Italians, because it just seemed the most appropriate. For reasons having nothing to do with Christopher Columbus.”

      1. I’m fully behind us ceasing to celebrate Italian-Americans.

      2. What genocide did Christopher Columbus commit?

        1. HE WAS A GENOCIDAL MANIAC!!

        2. He introduced tobacco to the Old World.

          1. That was Walter Raleigh.

    3. “It’s crazy to think this will escalete beyond Confederates.”

  12. This is what should be protested by every Richmonder, this could be the uniting cause!

  13. This is what should be protested by every Richmonder, this could be the uniting cause!

  14. This is what should be protested by every Richmonder, this could be the uniting cause!

    1. That’s three strikes of protest against Virginia. To the gas chamber for you!

  15. Yeah, the “public safety” meme is the rage now. The statues gotta come down, because they’re becoming a rally point for extremists.

    But how is it that those statues have been sitting out there, being shat on by birds for decades, without posing a “public safety” hazard? It seems to me that it didn’t start being a problem until leftists starting pulling them down. A cynical person might be led to wonder if that wasn’t the point: take a reprehensible but moribund movement and poke it with a stick so that it becomes a useful Emmanuel Goldstein.

    1. Positive fascism is the direction the world will go, and has been going I suppose. It’s harder to get people to fight and kill lesser people these days. So the only thing to do is sell it as saving them with extreme violence and subjugation.

      1. Positive fascism

        That’s, like, what they do at Disneyland, right?

  16. Well, if he did say “the problem is you”, he would have been right.

    People kinda suck sometimes. Even among the “didn’t kill anybody” or “didn’t hit anybody with a 2×2” crowd there was plenty of contemptible behavior.

    That being said, people who run police departments should already be well aware of this concept. And even if they weren’t, and even if they hadn’t been paying attention on reddit and 4chan to all of the smack-talk from Nazis and Communists about plans for violence, they still should have been able to pick up a clue when groups of people were showing up in uniforms that were clearly designed for rioting.

    The account of police clearing the park where the rally was permitted to occur by forcing everyone attending directly into a gauntlet of “counter-protesters” is pretty damning. And that account does match some of the video I’ve seen from the day – police forming a shield wall and advancing and pushing the last few folks out of the park and into the street.

    With all of the militia types carrying that day, they are lucky a full-on shootout didn’t develop, like the one in Greensboro some 35+ years ago

    1. “”With all of the militia types carrying that day, they are lucky a full-on shootout didn’t develop,””

      I guess they have better fire discipline than those with sticks. And the one guy with a car.

  17. There’s no good excuse for why this happened;

    Well yeah, yeah there is – its not the police’s job to prevent crime. That’s just a nice side-effect of them being around. Their job is to come by later, pick up the pieces, and go after the perpetrators and – after due process – punish them.

    But they’re not going to keep you safe – hell, legal precedent even says they have no particular responsibility to do so.

    1. That’s a reason, not an excuse. An excuse is, “Oh, all of our tummies were hurting that day and so it was hard to police good.”

    2. “”But they’re not going to keep you safe – hell, legal precedent even says they have no particular responsibility to do so.””

      My understand was they have no obligation to keep you, the individual safe, there job is public safety. Public safety is what was missing. No?

  18. A core role of the police in the United States is to protect citizens’ rights to assemble freely and protest safely.

    Aaah, Scott, you beautiful dreamer!

    The “mission statement” of my town (a mid-sized New England city) is to maintain a safe city by working in partnership with the community to prevent and reduce crime, protect life and property, help resolve neighborhood problems and protect the rights of all.

    Evidently my police think protecting my rights comes waaaaaaay after maintaining a “safe city”.

    1. And the Charlottesville PD apparently didn’t even try to live up to that modest goal.

  19. No way that’s even remotely Constitutional.

    1. And who is going to sue? Just because something is unconstitutional, doesn’t mean it gets stopped. You need a lawsuit to end it and the ACLU has quietly said that it is not going to reflexively defend these people anymore.

      1. Is that true what you said about the ACLU?

        1. Yes. Read the WSJ article about it or Volokh in the Washington Post

          1. Well, it is definitely evidence that they do not value free speech.

            1. Well I’m sure that they are kicking themselves now. Why – all of the Trumpians in Reasonland were this close to sending them membership fees. And now – poof.

      2. And our kangaroo courts will say that you only get standing if they kill you. Then you are free to file a claim for redress.

      3. I dunno. Underpants Gnomes?

      4. It would be a good opportunity for a libertarian group to plan a protest over the inability to exercise their right to protest.

        Damn, now I wish I was in Virginia.

        1. No, actually, you don’t.
          I left decades ago as the rot spread south from DC, and morn daily for honor and respect.

    2. haha nope. But good luck getting a ruling on it before the ban expires.

  20. “We should be terribly concerned whenever governments censor and suppress public debate because of the inconveniences it presents to law and order.”

    Reason writers are so brave. Way to make a stand.

    1. Scott went out and punched a cop in the face after this. What have you done that’s so brave?

    2. Man, you’re really fighting for the Douchiest Douche in Doucheland trophy this year. And you know, I think you might have a shot this year.

      1. He’s been working on that for some time now.

    3. Shackleton wrote an article. You wrote a bitchy comment on said article. What’s your point?

  21. ” A core role of the police in the United States is to protect citizens’ rights to assemble freely and protest safely.”

    This moron needs to read Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005).

    Pigs have no such duty to protect you.

  22. Why not enforce “no masked protests” laws and then punish the shit out of the shitheads who do the bad shit?

  23. Why not enforce “no masked protests” laws and then punish the shit out of the shitheads who do the bad shit?

    1. Why enforce that law over the myriad of other laws they refuse to enforce? If we enforced laws uniformly then it would be harder to punish only those we dislike.

      1. Man, all my comments are passive-aggressive sarcastic bullshit.

        1. That’s why you fit in at Hit’n’Run.

          1. Did you not realize that you were lied to?

          2. Too soon? Oh, that Hit’n Run…

  24. …we know full well at this point that people with violent or otherwise disruptive plans are embedding themselves inside large political protests like these.

    On many sides, Shackleford?

    McAuliffe can try to shut my protest down with his unconstitutional decree, but he’ll have to pry my “no opinion” sandwich board out of my cold, dead hands.

  25. A core role of the police in the United States is to protect citizens’ rights to assemble freely and protest safely.

    There is no right to assemble freely. There is a right to ‘peaceably assemble’. That is in fact why permits are generally required because courts have repeatedly ruled on when those assemblies violate the peaceable part. And it should be pretty obvious that if those initiating the assembly evince little intent to be peaceable about it (and their own history provides evidence that peaceable ain’t on their minds at all), that the police have no obligation to protect non-existent rights.

    1. Yeah, I’m starting to think that libertarians are the biggest threats to individual right, now.

      1. If you think libertarians are bad, you should see everyone else.

        1. Fair. But, actually, at this point conservatives seem to be a hell of a lot better on speech than a lot of libertarians. The comment above is just bad

          1. Just because someone is commenting on Hit’n’Run, even regularly, doesn’t mean they’re a libertarian.

          2. Conservatives have just decided that when push comes to shove, they prefer coercion (picking the pushers or the shovers).

            1. You probably shouldn’t speak after your last remark

              1. Why? Am I not being peaceable enough for you?

      2. How’s that exactly? I would say Libertarians with very narrow views of individual rights are a threat, but only because they’re in thrall to the prevailing cultural and non-state political power. Wouldn’t want to make the cool kids too uncomfortable by talking about actual implications of individual rights when it comes to people almost nobody likes. But the Lib’tarians are not the ones with the power to enforce that limited view.

        I do wonder how widely shared amongs Lib’tarians is the idea that certain individual rights, e.g., the First Amendment rights, only matter as a limitation against the state, but have no valence against encroachment by other individuals. (And if state actors should encourage those inviduals, sure that’s a little bad, but as long as it’s not them doing it, well, what can you do?)

        This goes back to the last election. The Libertarian ticket’s actual positions were that state-backed cultural authoritarianism was just fine, after all being used only against bigots.

    2. And it should be pretty obvious that if those initiating the assembly evince little intent to be peaceable about it (and their own history provides evidence that peaceable ain’t on their minds at all), that the police have no obligation to protect non-existent rights.

      To be fair, as despicable as the neo-Nazis are, they’re not the ones smashing private property because Charles Pierce is giving a talk on stupid white rednecks.

    3. So you want the authorities to read people’s minds, and if they so determine, “hey those guys won’t be peaceable, we don’t have to protect them?”

      In other words, a meaningless right as long as the authorities can come up with some excuse?

  26. It’s great the public spaces and government arbitration of disputes gives us a peaceful, united society.

  27. RE: Virginia Governor Responds to Violence with Temporary Protest Ban in Richmond

    TRANSLATION: We must burn the US Constitution in order to save the US Constitution.

  28. Reviewing the events in Charlottesville to determine what steps can and should be taken to prevent any such violence from occurring again is critically necessary for public safety and demands a full review of permitting processes and other relevant regulations.

    Governor Carpetbagger is still an ass, I see. He could have just let the cops do their damned jobs under current regs. But no, moar rules to the rescue. And I’m sure this review will not result in denying rights to undesirables.

  29. Silencing everyone once you have determined you are the arbiter of what is right is always the next step before more violence

  30. “”McAuliffe is calling for a “task force” that will have three entire months to come up with the appropriate “regulations” to manage protests at this monument.””

    Will it take less than three months for SCOTUS to shoot it down?

  31. At the point a public park is a poorly managed public battleground for assholes, why not just tear the statue out, sell the property, and tell the assholes to go rent a space to rant and vent?

    Oh, yeah: because then we wouldn’t have the right to a space of banned speech. What was I thinking?

  32. There’s no good excuse for why this happened;

    How about “we need a good excuse to go ahead and start the assault on the first amendment, since we have gone far enough for now with the assault on the second. Once we get them accepting of permits to exercise their constitutional rights, it’s in the bag.”

  33. What authority does the governor have to issue this order, anyway? Isn’t the Lee statue on city, not state, property? And aren’t there statutes governing the issuance of permits for demonstrations?

  34. So why does Reason stand by and let idiots convince suckers that the Civil War was caused by racial collectivism? Andrew Jackson addressed the Congress in 1833 regarding South Carolina’s virtual secession by outlawing US customs and tariffs. Read it here http://tinyurl.com/y892hzj6 on Google News. This Nullification crisis ended all hope of stopping “protective” tariff extortion within the system just as the Acts of Navigation had necessitated the 1st Revolution in 1775 and led Lord Dunmore to issue an Emancipation Proclamation long before Lincoln and for similar effect. The Morrill protective tariff was enacted after Lincoln was elected but during the 120 days before his taking office. That was when Texas raided armories and commandeered revenue ships, sparking tariff revolt elsewhere. Meekly disarmed colonial Brazilians had no such possibility, and slavery continued there until after Cleveland’s first term–yet communists do not order their statues torn down.

  35. Antifa get in their time machine, dial back to 1964, place Berkeley CA, and confront the so called “Free Speech Movement” fascists.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7voNTOAaUs

  36. I think Hihn is a mentally disturbed idiot.

  37. very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it.
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder for pc
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder download

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.