America Faces No Greater Threat Than Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Their Assault to Our Borders Is As Great As Their Assault to Free Speech and Free Elections
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
WILL JOE BIDEN'S BIG TECH BILLONAIRE CRONIES DESTROY AMERICA OR JUST FREE SPEECH???
Why You Need to Read Josh Hawley’s The Tyranny of Big Tech
After the corporate media firestorm following the events at Capitol Hill on January 6th, Missouri senator Josh Hawley had a wakeup call. His publisher, Simon & Schuster, dropped his book, The Tyranny of Big Tech. They blamed him for taking part in a “disturbing, deadly insurrection,” and decided to punish him accordingly.
Within days, Hawley’s book had a new publisher. Conservative house Regnery Publishing is dedicated to “building strong minds and fostering rigorous debate.” It saw value in the hefty topic which Hawley has taken on for the majority of his career: reigning in big tech monopolies.
This book is a crash course in the history of monopolies and corporate liberalism which led to the rise of big tech. From the birth of the railway industry to the current state of online censorship, Hawley offers readers the information they need to take back control of their privacy and communications.
Big Tech corporations have already paid numerous fines for violating antitrust laws across the globe. They are constantly under investigation for suppressing information and potentially did so to sway the 2020 election. Facebook and Twitter are especially noted for suppressing important information in the last Presidential election regarding Joe Biden’s involvement in his son’s potentially illegal business dealings with Ukraine.
Facebook actively censored the story and Twitter went even further. It disconnected users’ ability to retweet, link, or DM the story. Only after the election, in December, did federal prosecutors confirm that Biden’s son was under investigation for the alleged crimes.
Hawley lays out factual evidence of privacy abuses by the major online corporate monopolies, some from the beginning of their creation. From day one, Google was designed to follow users’ online movements and collect data. With this came the tech boom that led to the rise of Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter. These companies used data mining, like Google, to surveillance unsuspecting individuals who created accounts. They were basically giant computers made to watch our every move, despite hosting some privacy functions for users.
Hawley writes about a whistleblower from Facebook who reported that the social media site was not only working to spy on its users but even conducted experiments on them to see if they could control individuals’ moods by manipulating what was shown on their feeds.
These experiments dated back to 2012, and concluded that Facebook did possess the ability to alter moods. The company continued to perform these kinds of experiments without the consent of those utilizing their platform.
The Tyranny of Big Tech goes on to explore concerns about social media and other tech giants’ role in making their platforms as addictive as possible. Social media itself was “enhanced” and “improved” over the years, but these tweaks in the systems have been especially designed to keep users checking their devices as often as possible to keep them engaged online for maximum periods of time. YouTube’s autoplay function, Facebook’s tagging system for photos, notifications, likes, and so on are all designed to be as addictive as possible.
A direct decline in attention spans has been measured not only in adults, but especially children. With schools moving from paper and pencils to laptops, concerns over screen time and the role big tech plays in the rise of teen depression, suicide, and sleep deprivation is highly alarming. Hawley discusses this as a concerned father who recognizes the need to limit the screen time in his household.
The main points in this book all circle around the issues of corporate monopolies -- which have intruded on individual liberties.
The problem lies in the fact that so many people cannot, or will not, challenge these companies. Officials have allowed these corporate giants to use the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against the Department of Justice to further their own agenda of elitism. Big tech and big government are highly connected and have led manipulation of individuals and information to normalize cancel culture and other political attacks on anyone who speaks up or speaks out.
Josh Hawley offers a list of actions that can be taken to break up big tech which allow our systems to serve us instead of making us bow down to them. First and foremost, how individuals and families consider tech and utilize it is at the heart of taking on big tech. Neighborhood and community efforts to re-engage people in real life activities with real life connections can also allow us to balance the tyranny wrought by big tech.
Going further, Hawley suggests revisions to the infamous Section 230 which protects these tech giants. If revised, redefining social media platforms as publishers will hold them accountable for censoring factual information and political bias. There is also suggestion to end the FTC -- which has little to no regulation and is easily corrupted -- and give oversight of anti-trust laws to the Department of Justice.
All in all, The Tyranny of Big Tech goes through the complex history of big tech and corporate liberalism -- which is highly tied to the political issues of today. It is a crucial resource in today’s fight for freedom and liberty over elitism and control.
Jessica is a homeschooling mother of four, author of The Golden Rule, Walk Your Path, and The Magic of Nature, and her work has been featured by The New American, The Epoch Times, Evie Magazine, American Thinker, and many more.
Hawley described increasingly concentrated power over the flow of information in the hands of companies like Facebook and Google as a threat to all news media.
“The irony here is that Big Tech is also a threat to the establishment media in that Big Tech is about to control them, too,” he concluded. “It’s really a deal with the devil that the establishment media is making.”
Breitbart News Daily broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife helped buy the presidency for the increasingly frail and feeble former Vice President Joe Biden by improperly influencing election officials as they strategically flooded left-wing activist groups with more than $400 million during the 2020 election cycle.
Those groups, in turn, gave huge grants to election administrators in order to create “a two-tiered election system that treated voters differently depending on whether they lived in Democrat or Republican strongholds,” Phill Kline, director of the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, a public interest law firm focused on religious freedom, wrote in a new report.
Part of the lesson here is that not all privatization is good. Some things need to be done by government alone.
“This privatization of elections undermines the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which requires state election plans to be submitted to federal officials and approved and requires respect for equal protection by making all resources available equally to all voters,” according to Kline.
And this illicit collusion between pro-Biden funders like Zuckerberg and government officials that outsourced election administration to the activist Left helped Democrats prevail in battleground states. It may end up installing a puppet of the Communist Chinese in the White House in the terminal stage of the rolling coup attempt against President Donald Trump that began before he was inaugurated.
This year there was “an unprecedented and coordinated public-private partnership to improperly influence” the election in swing states, which “effectively placed government’s thumb on the scale to help these private interests achieve their objectives and to benefit” Barack Obama’s former vice president, according to Kline, a former attorney general of Kansas.
Biden, an underachieving, sleazy career politician from Delaware with no notable achievements despite a half century in office, has claimed victory and the transition process is underway even though President Trump continues to contest the election. Trump’s lawyers filed a new appeal with the Supreme Court Dec. 20 in hopes of reversing the Democrat-dominated Pennsylvania Supreme Court rulings that they say unconstitutionally modified the state’s voting-by-mail laws, opening the door to massive election fraud.
Election experts have long said that mail-in voting is fraught with problems because it gives wrongdoers greater opportunities for fraud compared to in-person balloting.
The bipartisan U.S. Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, determined in 2005 that “absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud” and that “vote-buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail.”
“The consensus among people who study fraud carefully is that voting by mail is a much more fertile area for fraud than voting in person,” Charles Stewart, a professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in 2018.
Pennsylvania’s official 20 presidential electors voted for the Biden-Harris ticket Dec. 14 while a completing slate of Republican electors voted for the Trump-Pence ticket. The Democrat electors in Pennsylvania and other contested states may be challenged in Congress on Jan. 6 when the electoral votes are officially tabulated.
Kline’s report comes as presidential advisor Peter Navarro released his own 36-page report detailing voting irregularities.
“The observed patterns of election irregularities are so consistent across the six battleground states [i.e. Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin] that they suggest a coordinated strategy to, if not steal the election outright, strategically game the election process in such a way as to ‘stuff the ballot box’ and unfairly tilt the playing field in favor of the Biden-Harris ticket,” Navarro said during a Dec. 18 conference call with reporters.
According to the Amistad Project’s report, Zuckerberg and his wife made $419.5 million in donations to nonprofits this election cycle –“Zuckerbucks,” as some have called the money— $350 million of which went to the “Safe Elections” Project of the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL). The other $69.5 million went to the Center for Election Innovation and Research.
Contrary both to federal law and state legislature-endorsed election plans, Zuckerberg’s money “dictated city and county election management,” Kline wrote in the report’s executive summary.
In addition, “executive officials in swing states facilitated, through unique and novel contracts, the sharing of private and sensitive information about citizens within those states with private interests, some [of] whom actively promote leftist candidates and agendas.”
This sharing of data “allowed direct access to data of unique political value to leftist causes, and created new vulnerabilities for digital manipulation of state electronic poll books and counting systems and machines.”
The Amistad Project, which began investigating the digital vulnerabilities of state election systems in spring 2019, learned that state and local elections officials did not preserve the legal right to access computer logs on the machines counting ballots.
“The first step to engage any computer forensic examination is to gain access to machine logs, yet scores of election officials failed to maintain the right to even review such information, much less establish a method for bipartisan review. In effect, America purchased a complex ballot box (computer) into which its votes would be deposited, but didn’t have the right to open the box and review the count.”
As the COVID-19 crisis worsened in March 2020, more and more lawsuits were filed by left-wing organizations aimed at weakening laws designed to protect the integrity of absentee ballots, the report noted.
Kline is correct.
Democrats aiming to make mail-in balloting mandatory for all Americans in the 2020 election attacked electoral integrity laws in well over a dozen in the courts in an attempt to overturn restrictions on voting-by-mail.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told MSNBC May 20 that going forward it would be called “voting at home,” after Democrats discovered that the idea of “voting-by-mail” didn’t excite actual voters. Voting in person is “a health issue” in the era of the pandemic, she said.
Democrats and other voting-by-mail advocates claimed voters shouldn’t have to risk their physical well-being to vote. Republicans countered that mail-in voting should not be expanded because it is so susceptible to fraud and that Democrats were using the pandemic as an excuse to rig the election.
The attorney leading the legal onslaught against fair elections was Marc Elias of the high-powered Democratic law firm Perkins Coie. Elias has a long history of successfully fighting electoral integrity policies in court, eliminating or weakening signature-matching requirements and ballot-receipt deadlines.
Elias is also an important figure in the “Russiagate” conspiracy, which aimed to overturn the result of the 2016 presidential election. A lawyer who represented the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign in the 2016 election cycle, Elias hired Fusion GPS in April 2016 to conduct opposition research against then-candidate Trump. That research effort culminated in the laughable, thoroughly discredited 35-page dossier written by former British spy Christopher Steele that purported to tie Trump to the Russian government.
While the leftist litigation was ripping electoral safeguards to shreds, battleground state governors began issuing emergency executive orders restricting in-person voting, which has many anti-fraud safeguards, while putting state resources into promoting high-risk, fraud-prone voting-by-mail.
“[T]his coordinated assault on in-person voting generally favored Democrat Party voters who preferred to vote in advance, while placing Republicans, who preferred to vote in person, at a disadvantage,” Kline stated in the report.
Combined, these actions helped to create “a two-tier election system favoring one demographic while disadvantaging another demographic.”
Infused with hundreds of millions of Zuckerbucks, the Center for Tech and Civic Life, “a previously sleepy 501(c)(3) organization … whose previous annual revenues never exceeded $1.2 million,” suddenly began asking Democratic Party strongholds to seek strings-attached grants that imposed strict conditions on the way recipient jurisdictions ran their elections.
CTCL gave $100,000 to Racine, Wisconsin, in May of this year, and asked its mayor to recruit four other cities (Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, and Milwaukee) to develop a joint grant request. The bloc of cities submitted a “Wisconsin Safe Election Plan” on June 15 to CTCL and, in turn, got $6.3 million from the nonprofit to implement the plan.
The plan treated state election integrity laws “as obstacles and nuisances to be ignored or circumvented,” as CTCL “retained the right, in the grant document, to, in its sole discretion, order all funds returned if the grantee cities did not conduct the election consistent with CTCL dictates.”
In effect, CTCL managed the election in the five affected Wisconsin cities.
The report stated that the CTCL-engineered plan also went around voter ID requirements for absentee ballots by defining all voters as “indefinitely confined” due to COVID-19, and later, after criticism from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, by directing election clerks not to question such claims.
The plan also ushered in the use of drop boxes for ballot collection, a move that disrupted the chain of custody of the ballot, and consolidated counting centers, “justifying the flow of hundreds of thousands of ballots to one location and the marginalization of Republican poll watchers such that bipartisan participation in the management, handling, and counting of the ballots was compromised.”
Electoral integrity watchdogs got wise to CTCL’s pro-Biden game early on.
A group of Wisconsin voters filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Election Commission against the group, claiming that election-assistance grants it gave to Democrat-dominated cities violated state law.
The complainant, Wisconsin Voter Alliance, based in Suamico, Wisconsin, claimed in the legal complaint that CTCL grants violated state law prohibiting the provision of monies to election officials to induce persons to vote or influence an election outcome.
Zuckerberg’s saturation-bombing of CTCL with money allowed the group to hand out so much cash that Democratic strongholds spent around $47 per voter, compared to $4 to $7 per voter in traditionally Republican areas of Wisconsin, according to Kline.
Zuckerberg-underwritten CTCL grants also found their way to election officials in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.
CTCL grants in Pennsylvania were used to pay election judges in Philadelphia and other election officials. CTCL directed Philadelphia to increase its polling locations and to use drop boxes and eventually mobile pick-up units.
Zuckerbucks allowed Philadelphia to “cure” improperly completed absentee ballots in a manner not provided for in Republican-leaning areas of the state, the report stated.
For example, in Democrat-dominated Delaware County, Pennsylvania, one drop box was placed every four square miles and for every 4,000 voters. In the 59 counties Trump won in 2016, there was one drop box for every 1,100 square miles and every 72,000 voters.
“Government encouraging a targeted demographic to turn out the vote is the opposite side of the same coin as government targeting a demographic to suppress the vote,” Kline wrote.
“This two-tiered election system allowed voters in Democrat strongholds to stroll down the street to vote while voters in Republican strongholds had to go on the equivalent of a ‘where’s Waldo’ hunt.”
“These irregularities existed wherever Zuckerberg’s money was granted to local election officials. In effect, Mark Zuckerberg was invited into the counting room, and the American people were kicked out.”
If Biden ends up being sworn in Jan. 20, take a wild guess who will be receiving a presidential Medal of Freedom.
Big Tech, Koch Network Cheer Biden’s Amnesty to Flood U.S. Labor Market
This week, Biden’s amnesty plan was introduced in Congress by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) as Democrats look to increase foreign competition in the U.S. workforce while more than 17 million Americans are jobless.
Among other things, the plan would:
· Put nearly all illegal aliens in the U.S. on an eight-year path to citizenship
· Provide $4 billion in foreign aid to Central America
· Expand the U.S. labor market with more foreign visa workers
· Expedite green cards for foreign relatives, otherwise known as “chain migration”
· Potentially add 52 million foreign-born residents to the U.S. population
· Eliminate per-country caps, ensuring India monopolizes employment green cards
· Increase the Diversity Visa Lottery program where visas are given out randomly
· Provide green cards to foreign students who graduate in advanced STEM fields
· Bring already deported illegal aliens back to the U.S. to provide them amnesty
For Amazon, millions of newly legalized illegal aliens, foreign visa workers, and chain migrants who would be added to the U.S. labor market as a result of the plan are a boon to multinational corporations’ profits.
“Today’s immigration reform bill marks an important step in reducing the green card backlog, creating a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers & making our immigration system more efficient,” Amazon officials wrote in a statement. “We look forward working [with] the administration and Congress to advance these proposed solutions.”
Today's immigration reform bill marks an important step in reducing the green card backlog, creating a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers & making our immigration system more efficient. We look forward working w/ the administration & Congress to advance these proposed solutions.
Specifically, aside from providing Amazon with more foreign visa workers to hire, the plan includes a green card giveaway that would create a green card system where only H-1B foreign visa workers are able to obtain employment-based visas by creating a backlog of seven to eight years for all foreign nationals.
The process would reward outsourcing firms and tech corporations for the decades of outsourcing American jobs to H-1B foreign visa workers.
Executives with the Libre Initiative, a Koch-funded organization, also praised the Biden amnesty plan as “an important first step” to securing the green card giveaway for corporations that they have also long lobbied for.
“There is broad support for proposals like a permanent solution for Dreamers, workforce visa reform, removing per-country caps, efficient border security measures and much more,” Daniel Garza with the Libre Initiative wrote in a statement:
Lawmakers should seize the opportunity and demonstrate that partisan gridlock will not keep the American public waiting another 30 years for congress to enact sensible, permanent solutions. We look forward to working with lawmakers to ensure that we can get nonpartisan, sensible solutions past both chambers and enacted into law.
Todd Schulte with FWD.us, a group that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg created to lobby on behalf of tech corporations, called the amnesty plan a “critical moment for immigration policy” and a “substantial step forward.”
“Congress has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform a long-failed and too easily weaponized immigration system,” Schulte wrote in a statement. “The time is now and we will seize this moment.”
Despite the business lobby’s insistence that there is a labor shortage, millions of Americans are out of work today and hundreds of thousands of U.S. graduates enter the labor market every year looking for white-collar professional jobs with competitive pay and good benefits.
Already, the U.S. admits about 1.2 million legal immigrants every year. Another 1.4 million foreign visa workers are brought in annually to take American jobs, many in white-collar professions. The latest data reveals that nearly 6-in-10 workers in Silicon Valley, California — the tech industry’s hub — are foreign-born.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
Biden's open border advocate Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the Center for Immigration Studies has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegal aliens were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, California, with its 2.6 million illegal aliens, would be booming.
The Tyranny of Big Tech, Senator Josh Hawley’s excoriation of corporate power, created a media firestorm before it even came out. The original publisher, Simon & Schuster, dropped the book amid the January 6 riots and the Missouri Republican’s insistence on contesting the 2020 election results.Now snatched up by conservative publisher Regnery, it’s selling well—the latest example of cancel culture’s Streisand effect.
In form and structure, Tyranny mirrors a recent book on the same topic by Hawley’s Antitrust Committee colleague and chairwoman, Democratic senator Amy Klobuchar. Antitrust (reviewed in these pages), also tried to frame vigorous antitrust as recovering an American tradition shared by Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Teddy Roosevelt, among others.
The two books also share a few political prescriptions. Both senators critique the "Chicago School" of antitrust theory, which takes a friendly view of most mergers. Both, in their own ways, emphasize the dangers of corporate size in itself, even before they address specific harms caused by large companies.
But they differ in whom exactly they want to target. While Klobuchar is a critic of corporate power generally, Hawley knows exactly whom he wants to go after: Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google (Twitter, though much smaller, comes in for some heat as well). The book’s greatest strength is also its weakness: Hawley genuinely thinks these companies cause more harm than good and doesn’t shy away from saying so. Tyranny doesn’t vacillate, but it also comes off at times as shortsighted, unwilling to flesh out an approach to big tech companies that might also implicate other nefarious corporate actors.
Hawley’s "corporate barons" are the inheritors of the Gilded Age robber barons, except these corporate barons don’t even create real physical things. "[T]oday’s tech oligarchs wield immense power, thanks to a combination of government aid and monopoly; like the barons, they are utterly convinced of their own righteousness and their right to govern America."
The book’s main targets are the attention economy these oligarchs created and their censorious behavior. In Hawley’s reading of the big tech economic model, users are "sources of information to be mined" for as long as possible. As a result of this shift, we increasingly see a new hierarchy of jobs, with the digital world of content creation reigning over the real-world labors of the "Jeffersonian middle class." Hawley suggests that this world of "modern horrors" has been foisted on American citizens, who otherwise wouldn’t choose constant invasions of their privacy.
For Hawley, this paradigm is fundamentally dangerous to a republican mode of governance, both because it turns citizens into consumptive drones and because it allows tech to monopolize the flow of information. Jon Askonas points out that Hawley’s targets are disseminators of information, rather than companies like Microsoft, which have tremendous market power in other domains. Hawley is less concerned with unaccountable corporations generally, and more concerned with "corporate liberalism," specifically the ideological valence of the platforms that censor speech.
It’s a book short on trade-offs. Hawley correctly brings up the shocking censorship of political dissents Facebook engages in, but many observers believe his proposed solution (Section 230 reform) would mean a massive spike in just this kind of censorship. The antitrust arguments in Tyranny are also rather confusing to follow, as Hawley both criticizes the dangers of the attention economy and complains that monopolies make it harder for competitors to thrive in the same morally questionable businesses.
The policy prescriptions he outlines vary from reasonable to misguided. Hawley believes our current standard for "market power" in antitrust law is too limited: He’s appalled that the law doesn’t look closer at Facebook’s 83 percent share of consumers’ time spent on social media, for instance. At other points, he lambasts platform features like autoplay or sorting by relevance, which plenty of social media users find valuable.
Perhaps Hawley’s most aggressive proposal is to eliminate Section 230 protections for any company that engages in behavioral advertising (that is, all of them). According to Hawley, "behavioral ads drive many of tech platforms’ worst pathologies—the surveillance, the addiction race, the data pilfering." The move would break big tech platforms completely, and Hawley suggests that outcome wouldn’t be so bad.
In the most intriguing passages, Hawley suggests a kind of alternate history for tech, in which different legal principles at the dawn of the internet age could have created a decentralized internet, free of coercion or censorship. But this slim volume doesn’t discuss the flowering of decentralized social media or internet applications happening now—one wonders what the senator has to say about Discord, Bluesky, or cryptocurrency.
Tyranny lays out a program that would cut off big tech companies at the knees. But whether Americans care enough about targeted advertising, censorship, and the perils of the attention economy to endorse this program is another question. If Hawley is right, and we have been turned from citizens to consumers and inputs into the big data machine, it may be too late for his suite of solutions.
The Tyranny of Big Tech by Josh Hawley Regnery, 200 pp., $29.99
Poll: Almost Two-Thirds of Americans Say Social Media Is Ripping Country Apart
According to a recent NBC News poll, the majority of Americans say that they use social media at least once a day and also believe that platforms like Facebook and Twitter are dividing the nation rather than bringing it together. 77 percent of conservatives believe social media platforms are dividing the country.
NBC News reports that a recent national NBC News poll found that the majority of Americans admit that they use social media at least once a day and also believe that platforms like Facebook and Twitter are doing more to divide the country rather than unite it.
66 percent o adults say they use social media at least once a day, versus 33 percent who say that they don’t. These numbers are essentially the same as NBC poll figures from both 2018 and 2019.
64 percent of Americans reportedly think that social media platforms do more to divide the nation than unite it. This includes majorities of Republicans (77 percent), independents (65 percent), and Democrats (54 percent). The poll also reported that the majority of whites (70 percent), Latinos (56 percent), young adults (61 percent), and seniors (71 percent) all believe that social media is dividing the nation.
In comparison, only 27 percent of all adults believe that the platforms work to unite Americans. NBC notes that Black respondents are the one demographic split on the question, with 42 percent saying it’s more divisive and 40 percent saying it’s more unifying.
When the same questions were asked in a poll in March 2019, 57 percent of respondents said that social media platforms do more to divide Americans, while 35 percent said they do more to unite citizens.
Among daily social media users, 49 percent said that social media platforms improve their lives while 37 percent say that they make their lives worse. Democrats, women, and college graduates are more likely to say that social media improves their lives while Republicans, men, and those without college degrees are more likely to disagree.
The poll also finds that a majority of parents, 54 percent, say that the time their children have spent on computer screens, phones, and TVs has increased during the pandemic. 38 percent of parents say the amount of screen time for their children has stayed the same while 4 percent say it has declined.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolanor contact via secure email at the address lucasnolan@protonmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment