“End Their Politics”: Antifa and the Rejection of Liberal Democratic Values

contentBelow is my column in the Hill newspaper on the Antifa movement and its implications for free speech on our college and university campuses.  Yesterday, I shared a videotape from one such protest at GW near the law school a few months ago.  My concern is with those faculty members who legitimize the anti-speech foundation for this movement. Yet, the violence at Berkeley has exposed this movement for what it is.  This week Nancy Pelosi did criticize Antifa but then later qualified that criticism.  She said:

“Look, people are out there heiling Hitler and then you have a group that is antifa — anti-fascist; they’ve been there forever — some people may have infiltrated them. We’ll see. But that is not an equivalence, in my view.”

I fail to see why there is a need to draw distinctions.  Antifa is premised on the view that some speech is unworthy to be protected and that preventing people from hearing unworthy views is an act of “community self-defense.”  As the column discusses, the distinction between Antifa and its opposing fascists is rather difficult to discern in terms of the effort to intimidate or assault those with opposing views.  The threat of Antifa is summed up by the description of one of its most influential academic voices.  Dartmouth Professor Mark Bray says that the movement has no interest in co-existence with opposing views and seeks not simply to oppose them but to “end their politics.”

Here is the column:

The University of California in Berkeley was again the scene of violence recently, as protesters claimed license to silence those with whom they disagree. Their fight against “fascism” took the form of not just stopping a speech, but assaulting those who came to hear it.

For those of us at universities and colleges, these counter-demonstrators, and in particular the masked antifa protesters, are a troubling and growing presence on our campuses. They have been assaulting people and blocking speeches for years with relatively little condemnation. They flourish in an environment where any criticism is denounced as being reflective of racist or fascist sentiments.mark Bray However, as the latest violence in Berkeley vividly demonstrates, there is no distinction between these protesters and the fascists they claim to be resisting. They are all fascists in their use of fear and violence to silence others. What is particularly chilling is how some academics have given this anti-speech mob legitimacy through pseudo-philosophical rationalizations.


At Berkeley and other universities, protesters have held up signs saying “F–k Free Speech” and have threatened to beat up anyone taking their pictures, including journalists. They seem blissfully ignorant of the contradiction in using fascistic tactics as anti-fascist protesters. After all, a leading definition of fascism is “a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.”

CNN recently interviewed antifa protesters who insist that violence is simply the language that their opponents understand. Leftist organizer Scott Crow endorsed illegal actions and said that antifa activists cover their faces to “avoid the ramifications of law enforcement.” Such violent logic is supported by some professors.

Last week, Clemson University Professor Bart Knijnenburg went on Facebook to call Trump supporters and Republicans “racist scum.” He added, “I admire anyone who stands up against white supremacy, violent or nonviolent. This needs to stop, by any means necessary. #PunchNazis.” He is not alone. Trinity College Professor Johnny Williams, who teaches classes on race, posted attacks on bigots and called on people to “let them f—–g die.”

These voices go beyond the troubling number of academics supporting speech codes and the curtailment of free speech. These are scholars who have embraced the antithesis of the life and values of academia. They justify violence to silence those who are deemed unworthy to be heard. Dartmouth Professor Mark Bray, the author of a book entitled “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” is one of the chief enablers of these protesters. Bray defines antifa as “politics or an activity of social revolutionary self defense. It’s a pan-left radical politics uniting communists, socialists, anarchists and various different radical leftists together for the shared purpose of combating the far right.”

Bray speaks positively of the effort to supplant traditional views of free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase… that says I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” He defines anti-fascists as “illiberal” who reject the notion that far right views deserve to “coexist” with opposing views.

Bray says that the protesters do not “see fascism or white supremacy as a view with which they disagree as a difference of opinion.” Their goal is not co-existence but “to end their politics.” Bray and other academics are liberating students from the confines of what they deem the false “allegiance to liberal democracy.” Once freed of the values of free speech and democratic values, violence becomes merely politics by other means.

When pushed, Bray’s rationalization for the antifa movement rapidly descends into intellectual gibberish: “There is a certain political lens that — agree or disagree with the lens — there is an element of continuity in terms of the types of groups targeted. I don’t know of any Democratic Party events that have been ‘no platformed,’ or shut down by anti-fascists. So there is a political lens, people will quibble about what the lens is, who designs the lens, but I don’t think the slippery slope is actually, in practice, nearly as much of a concern as people imagine it would be.”

There does not have to be a “lens.” Indeed, that it is the principle of the “liberal democracy” so casually cast aside by Bray and his braying followers. While Bray insists that he is not in favor of violent protests or even free speech, he insists that there is a duty to stop those who threaten the existence of others and the antifa protests are a form of “community self defense.”

Ironically, Bray and others have come to use the intellectual freedom of our universities to advance the most anti-intellectual movement in our history. They are destroying the very academic institutions that have protected their extreme views. Just as the father of the atomic bomb, Robert Oppenheimer, said that “physicists have known sin,” the antifa movement is the sin of academia in abandoning our core values.

130px-Mao_Zedong_portraitThese protesters believe that history shows the dangers of free speech and the need to deny it to those who would misuse it. It is a familiar sentiment that “all the experience… accumulated through several decades teaches us… to deprive the reactionaries of the right to speak and let the people alone have that right.” Those were the words of another early anti-fascist, China’s Communist Party leader Mao Zedong.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

195 thoughts on ““End Their Politics”: Antifa and the Rejection of Liberal Democratic Values”

  1. Rather amusing that cover could be for a manifesto of any number of Communist organizations.

  2. Has anyone seen one MSM print or broadcast reporter ask a Dem politician to denounce Antifa? I’m telling you folks, this is the face of the Dem party, brought to you by George Soros, their largest donor. It’s almost like he’s trying to reelect Trump in a retarded Machiavellian way.

    1. Has anyone seen one MSM print or broadcast reporter ask a Dem politician to denounce Antifa? I

      Well, no. It isn’t the business of press agents to make their employers look bad. All of Judy Woodruff’s moderated discussions have the same set of perimeters.

  3. What makes the antifa so wrong is that no one works against their own cause harder than them. It would be more understandable if they were actually an arm of a white supremacist group. Most Americans are to be found in the center area either side of right and left. This is true with most stable countries. The extremes represent a minuscule number of like minded. Whether right or left they feel disenfranchised, are unstable, and simply angry. Both sides pull this sort of bullying sh*t. The only difference is that the extreme right is absolute scum that is on the way out. The extreme left is simply extreme. The best way to evolve the extreme right out of our society, the racism, white supremacist mantra, bigotry, etc is to let them spout their filth and just ignore it. The more attention paid to a travesty, the more credibility it gets among the dysfunctional. Case in point, Trump.

    1. Issac, the extreme right is not on its way out.

      It’s on its way to buy more ammo.

      Thanks to the Left and the over reactionary and unrealistic demands by the SJW crowd to limit the hard right’s speech, I’m afraid that instead of being victims, they transform into current day Potemkins.

      1. So, Roscoe

        You’re arguing, along with some others on this blog, for isolationism, separatism, racial distinction, religious intervention in civil life, etc.?

        1. Issac, not in the least. I just don’t think stifling one particular group’s right to excersice their first amendment rights, in a reasonably peaceful manner, in ANY way is productive and will produce exactly what you think is happening now out in the open but behind a new phantom like facade.
          If we suppress these groups we will create isolated, racially monochrome and extreme religious fanatics that will go underground and become somewhat invisible in ordinary daily life and have no way to temper their intentions until it’s too late.
          So I’m saying let them stay out in the open unhindered from sunlight and we won’t get a more lethal stew of what we have now and subsequently be able to do anything about it.

          1. Roscoe

            So, on this we agree. As someone who abhors the racist right wing extremes more than the mindless ‘antifa’ responses-hopefully you will understand I abhor both, I say take it one step further beyond protecting their ‘rights’. The greatest argument against extremism is to allow it out in the open where it presents itself as clearly as possible as the ‘tough talk’ of the under evolved, the lingo of the mindlessly angry, the battle cry of the real stupid guys and gals.

            The fear invoked by the extremes expounding their solutions, unfortunately, brings other purely angry people out. The freedom of speech must be protected from the freedom of speech. The freedom of right wing racists to gather and express themselves in being protected must be contained, just as its opposition must be contained. The problem here is not the left wing antifa so called attackers of the Constitution, as the right wing extremists are guilty of the same if not greater levels of violence, but the society which should allow, contain, and protect the exhibitions of these various perspectives. This addresses the greater responsibility of protecting freedoms from the perversion of their interpretations. If a group wants to parade vicious philosophies of racism, white supremacist, nazism, etc. then perhaps these expressions should be performed in ways that do not allow them to come into contact with the extreme opposites. Perhaps it’s not so much as standing up for the freedoms but the responsibility of seeing that they do not clash with their opposite extremes. Then if society makes this attempt and either side steps on the other’s toes, arrest the trouble makers and blog them into the sunset.

            1. “The freedom of right wing racists to gather and express themselves in being protected must be contained”

              The sentence appears slightly awkward, but it appears that you wish to curtail freedom of speech from the right because it might incite violent actions from others.

              Speech is not physical violence and should be countered by couter-speech, not by censoring speech. If it incites a group that will become violent, then the solution is to prevent the violence of the other group. We see this type of action in many places and it is quite successful and can be performed anywhere.

              Your solution seens to mean that the right has to arm itself and physically attack those on the left they don’t agree with so that the left’s speech can be contained.

              1. Admittedly, the statement was awkward but could be what ever one is seeking to find. More clearly, if extremist groups wish to rant and rave about what ever, the right about the virtues of racism and nazi solutions, then they should be protected by society from their extremist counterparts. Free speech does not necessarily mean to allow two opposing sides to go at it and accuse the side that threw the first stone. To protect freed speech means to protect those speaking freely. The authorities should know by now that when white supremacists and nazis get a permit to speak freely then they will be obligated to protect them, or keep the two sides apart, however one wishes to put it. Hecklers and those that get physical should be taken out. Heckling someone exercising their right to free speech is not free speech but obstruction. One could go back and forth until the cows come home on where the lines are and when they are crossed but there are lines and it is not enough to simply spout freedom of speech. Our freedoms come with responsibilities both individual and social.

                1. “Free speech does not necessarily mean to allow two opposing sides to go at it and accuse the side that threw the first stone.”

                  True, but that was likely the fault of leftist leaders.

                  “Heckling someone exercising their right to free speech is not free speech but obstruction.”

                  Depends upon the method and location.

                  “Our freedoms come with responsibilities both individual and social.”

                  Absolutely, and you can add moral as well.

    2. Issac, Antifa, the Black Bloc, etc. are the same as Nazi’s and the KKK. They are all authoritarian groups that represent dictatorships and countries like Cuba, China, the former Soviet Union and present day Russia. All these types of governments create obligations of citizens to serve the needs of the government without consent of the governed.

      1. Allen

        In your statement, you illustrate the primary problem. They are not the same. They share the same extremist actions but are not the same. KKK and nazism is a foundation of hate, racism, bigotry, that includes physical violence. Antifa and BLM are groups that respond with physical violence to these foundations of hate, racism, and bigotry. There is a yuge difference.

        1. The “yuge” difference is that they all have different ideological settings, but they are all authoritarian whether it be any of the many groups that protest under the violent group Antifa or whether they protest as Nazi’s or the KKK. The other feature is that all have been associated with violence. They all are hateful, the only difference is that some of those groups might like you. None of those groups like me.

  4. “the antifa movement is the sin of academia in abandoning our core values.”
    That seems like quite a stretch to blame academia for a tiny collection of violent idiots.
    Is there any proof that anyof those asshats actually went to college?

  5. I am a free speech absolutist. Everyone has the First Amendment right to make a complete fool or ass out of themselves. Crimes that are committed whatever the motivation, even if in the name of the “truth” should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Nazis, commies, gays, vegans, furries (look it up, I dare you), vampires or whatever, have the full panoply of rights secured by the First Amendment. I would go farther along the free speech continuum than the current Supreme Court jurisprudence would allow; more along the Justice William O. Douglas model. Antifa or whatever they call themselves today, whenever speech crosses into assault, law enforcement needs to do what they do. Since you asked…

  6. What is the ethnic background of the last name “Pelosi”? Is that just her married name? She could pass for a WOP. A WOP is not a With Out Papers person anymore. It is a Wife Of Pelosi.

  7. Well, more police departments need to handle AntiFa the way GW did. Rapid Response Force.

  8. “Left”? “Right”?
    I stand in the middle. I believe in Middle Ground. I believe in not believing. I have no faith. No God. No Dog. One cat, who is in the hat. I believe in letting people yak all they want. Do not listen if they yak Christian. Don’t hold back on shooting them if they threaten your existence.
    Praise the Lard on Sunday and pass the ammunition. Praise Crisco on Monday and pass gas.
    If a nun should appear, say Sister have a beer. In the cellar of Old John and James.

  9. Mark Brey’s views are echoed in Das Kapital by Marx and Friedrich Engels, and Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. Antifa’s black shirt thugs resemble the brown shirt thugs Hitler used. One man that was beaten at Berkeley by those same thugs for holding a sign preaching faith in God. Another was a journalist for holding a camera, who never said a word, and was saved by a brave black journalist who covered him with his body when he was being mercilessly beaten for absolutely no reason. History unfortunately repeats and the irony is absolute with the name “Antifa”.

    Just remember Hitler’s party’s name was the “National Socialist German Workers Party” and Joseph Stalin’s party name was the “Communist Party of the Soviet Union”. Mark Bray has embraced both ideals by name, ideals which have always led to fascism, and thinks by calling themselves anti-fanciest that no one will see what they are. Can he really believe that we know so little about history that he can hide what he is, and what he stands for? Amazing!

    What can the press, police, and the Democrat Party be thinking in supporting them? At the Berkeley rally the police were stopping and searching people to make sure they had no weapons, or anything they can use as a weapon. When Antifa showed up they let them come through and turned their backs when they became extremely violent. When the police were asked after the violence why they stood down and did nothing they said they were ordered to let Antifa do whatever they want. It seems to me, and I am no attorney or know 1% of what Mr. Turley knows, that this is a serious civil liberties case against the mayor and the police chief as well as Antifa.

    Felonies for Antifa individuals for intent to do severe bodily harm, and committing severe bodily damage (many have been hospitalized) seem also justified. Criminal negligence as well as gross dereliction of duty leading to serious bodily damage for both the mayor and the police chief.

    My two cents…

  10. There is no place like home.

    This year, on Nov. 12, as Sinterklaas prepared to make his grand entrance in Dordrecht, Quinsy Gario was being held on the ground and pepper sprayed by police officers. Gario is a published poet and artist and a Master’s student in women’s studies at the University of Utrecht. He was born in 1984 in the former Dutch colony of Curaçao and raised in Sint Maartin. He went to Dordrecht last month wearing a homemade T-shirt stenciled with the words “Zwarte Piet is Racism,” an action that quickly led to his arrest—though when he later demanded to know why, no specific law was cited.

    Gario came to the Netherlands with his mother for the first time in 1987. He says he never really noticed the Zwarte Piets during his first few years in the country, but one day his mother came home from work in shock because the receptionist had called her the office’s own “Zwarte Piet” as she entered the building. Ever since, the character has appeared throughout his poetry and artwork.

    “I tell people, ‘I’m not angry. I just find it sad that you don’t know what it means and I’m here to tell you,’ ” he says. Gario began making T-shirts like the one he wore to Dordrecht and photographing people wearing them on the street and posting them to a Tumblr page.

    Several weeks ago, as he stood among the crowds waiting for Sinterklaas in one of his T-shirts, Gario and a companion were approached by a police officer, who told them they would have to leave. When Gario asked for a reason, citing his freedom of speech, he says he was tackled to the ground. A video of the arrest shows Gario squirming on the pavement, repeating the words, “I didn’t do anything” as two officers hold him down.

    He was pepper-sprayed and pushed into a doorway where an officer held him by the neck and rubbed the pepper spray into his eyes and nose. He was then taken into custody along with a researcher and a journalist who had accompanied them to record their presentation.

    The Dutch often say they don’t have a problem with race. But the way Gario (and many others I talked to) see it, in the Netherlands, race is inextricably connected to immigration—something many Dutch people do openly have a problem with, as suggested by the rise of such politicians as Geert Wilders, who has expressed a deep distrust of immigrants and has called for closed borders. (Wilders was praised extensively by Anders Behring Breivik, the man behind the Norway terror attacks.)

  11. The lunatic far right are a bunch of pathetic losers. The lunatic far left have taken over our universities and media. They are far more dangerous.

      1. LOL! Your comments are uber short because you’re an old man who can’t type.

  12. The mindset of the left both here and elsewhere. Disgraceflull behavior, but not unexpected.

    “God drowned all the neo-Nazis of Texas’: French magazine Charlie Hebdo prints controversial cover depicting Harvey victims as white supremacists

    French magazine Charlie Hebdo’s latest edition includes a cover depicting Texans who drowned in the flood waters of Tropical Storm Harvey as Nazis”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4839070/Charlie-Hebdo-depicts-drowning-Harvey-victims-neo-Nazis.html#ixzz4rP2mrV3Y
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    1. Do not frown on those who drown. Drop all your bottles and run. Especially if a nun should appear.

    2. If true, it’s ridiculous. Sounds like you want to infringe on another’s free speech rights, though. The remedy for speech you disagree with is more speech; such as facts. I live in Houston. A “fact” is that not all of the persons who were killed by Harvey were “Nazis.” Although I don’t know the politics of the adults who were killed, I hold strong doubts that all were “Nazis.” However, I do know for a fact that very young children were killed, and I don’t believe that toddlers have the competency to form any political beliefs, much less that of a “Nazi.” Thus, the French magazines’ distasteful and ridiculous assertion is just that, and nothing more. However, I stand by their right to print such folderol.

      As an aside, a more interesting question is whether the statements made in French are non-specific enough to shield them from a defamation claim; Unless identifiable individuals were referenced, I think they are shielded.

      this is to “so what” allan

      1. This coverpage by the magazine Charles Hebdo “God drowned all the neo-Nazis of Texas’ wasn’t about defamation and suits. It was about how low the left could go. This is the nature of the left and people that associate too closely with them.

        To the leftist Marky M.

        1. I should have added:

          “ Sounds like you want to infringe on another’s free speech rights,”

          Marky poo, where did I say anything like that? I called it disgraceful behavior and not unexpected from people of your ilk. How does that comment infringe on anyone’s free speech rights. Check with the lawyer you do the filing for and have him explain this to you.

          1. All your wacky, inane, semi-incoherent statements are protected by the First Amendment. Carry on.

            This is to “huh, WTF are you talking about?” allan

            1. I often feel Markie poo that you have Cognitive dissonance, but this remark is plain dementia mixed with psychosis.. I hope your lawyer bosses offer you good insurance that includes psychiatric care.

    3. Charlie Hebdo can print whatever it wants. France will soon be a Muslim country and Charlie Hebdo will cease to exist.

        1. The total fertility rate in France is near replacement level. French Muslims are generally from the Maghreb, not a part of the world with high fertility (it’s just above replacement level). French Muslims are currently outnumbered 13-to-1. As long as France controls its borders, it will not be a ‘Muslim country’ any time soon.

          1. The word “If” or in this case the phrase “As long as” used by DSS is a very big word and all too often leads the user to disaster. There are many things that will control the destiny of France. The statistics involving ethnic groups in France are not the best. I suspect you are using the lower limit of the estimates around. That France has “near replacement level” means that the French population is shrinking. The term “any time soon” is an ambiguous term that leads to a very wide definition so while Roy is correct you are correct as well both dependent upon “As long as”, unknowns, and “any time soon”

          2. The word “If” or in this case the phrase “As long as” used by DSS is a very big word and all too often leads the user to disaster. There are many things that will control the destiny of France. The statistics involving ethnic groups in France are not the best. I suspect you are using the lower limit of the estimates around. That France has “near replacement level” means that the French population is shrinking. The term “any time soon” is an ambiguous term that leads to a very wide definition so while Roy is correct you are correct as well both dependent upon “As long as”, unknowns, and “any time soon”

  13. Violence has no place. I don’t care who uses it to intimidate those with whom they disagree.

    1. and that is your only reply? Fsscism is not repeat not limited to left, right up or down nor to politics or religion, or even the education system nor any other control system from kindergarten to commercial production. It’s only credo is complete control though use of any and all means available and all you cansay is ‘sad’ Like Pelosi you duck responsibility for that which you helped create.

      You say sad, look in iyour direction and say pathetic.

      Worse then having denied a freedom to others and shown ill regard for their safety you call for immediate aid and assistance when control of one of your own groups is lost and you are threatened.

      Why should I, or a police officer, or a member of the military rush to protect you who show so little regard for others. Answer: Tough Love. You are on your own. My life is worth far more than a contemptuous ‘sad.’ And so are the lives of others

      1. Making Stuff Up again.

        The Quakers say “What sayest thou?” but this is rantings of a denizen of Bedlam.

      2. Now I will go one better. Why should I risk my life for those who care nothing for their own. My oath of office both in the military and the police said much the same thing. Because my oath indicated to be one of those who did tsake cre of the ‘weak’ unable to take care of themselves and that is the meaning of them boiling their lives down to one word ‘sad.’

        Second addition. If you read what I said and replace the word fascism with ‘subjectivism’ or ‘objectivism’ or some other word indicative of the control system or set of values you live by you arrive at much the same conclusion.

        Those who believe in mystic feels good fairy tales and the belief in this world is not the real one but another one and only a certain few of us are privileged to undersand it and and therefore saddled with being the ‘ruling class.’ then all that’s left for pure happiness and purpose is don’t worry be happy. My version of subjectivism.

        My own objectivism says use the sysem as a measure of the validity of whatever else is being offered or that I arrive at on my own through observation, testing and the application of independent rational reasoning and thinking then I arrive at the inescapable responsibility which co-equals all ‘rights’ of becoming the sefl govening citizen envisioned by the founders.

        I also derive the value of that conclusion is only to myself but it reflects on how I view others and engage in some sort of social contract with others. From that derives morals, values and ethics and a useful solution which even so must always be tested. A poison such as arsenic can be set aside until one discovers the value of the tomato. and the wisdom in not boiling up a mess of greens from the same plant.

        There is no need to view the world as ‘sad’ or as ‘zero sum gained.’ nor to choose any form of evil as more preferable to another. Nor any need to offer the Nuremberg Defense for choosing a form of evil (which is not a defense but an admission to myself and to others of guilt with a plea for clemency attached.) Such as a certain comedian has recently done.

        Until that individual validates the public and personal confession by forgiving themselves it’s an insincere cop out. Same applies to me. I cannot therefore ‘forgive’ someone who has not forgiven themselves because they have no validation of their accepted control system and still plaintively cry “I was only following orders.”

        A state Nancy Pelosi found herself in this last week even though the orders she followed were those she gave. Likewise a repudiation of actions while Secretary of State followed by a lifetime of searching in a mirror for the sob who issued the orders I followed and never admitting the some was is looking at me from the mirror saying, ‘Sad.’

        The standards of objectivism are therefore much harder to accept and apply than the excuses of subjectivism. when one has chosen to accept the easy way out by blaming the mystic other world. But subjectivism also demands you accept a lifetime of trying to not worry and be happy in enjoying the self imposed sentence of being ‘sad.’

        the possibility of tyipos exists it’ s new month and day and I must now objectively face the reality of the current budget.

        1. did tsake cre of did take care of

          undersand understand

          sel self

          admitting the some admitting the someone

    2. This old man troll who can’t type has been very sad on this thread. Maybe we can buy him a happy emoji.

  14. Oh, and the only reason Nancy Pelosi says there is no equivalence between Antifa and the neo-Nazi types, after pretty much saying there was no equivalence, is because somebody told her she was saying the same thing Trump said. And no way she is going to admit that Trump was right!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Bingo. And because she saw her voting base being affected in her own district and her own egotistical version of greed hung in the balance.

          1. Michael, it doesn’t make a difference what you say or how much proof there is. David is like a monkey in a cage that randomly presses different buttons. I am sorry if I offended any monkeys.

  15. Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights, 1789


    Communist Manifesto

    Freedom and Self-Reliance, Severely Limited Government


    Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Control of the Means of Production, Central Planning, Social Engineering, Redistribution of Wealth

    1. Representative Constitutional Republic vs Socialist Autocracy. More simply Us vs. Them.. A replay of Nov 8th 2016.

Comments are closed.