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, October 4, 2023
A Haunting Glimpse Inside a Censoring Regime Biden: A threat to democracy.
JOE BIDEN AND HIS HIGH TECH BILLIONAIRES FOR OPEN BORDERS AND CENSORSHIP FOR THE BIDEN NEO-FASCIST REGIME
Analysis conducted last year reveal that 71 percent of tech workers in Silicon Valley are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers.
Despite his Wall Street, big business, Big Tech, and billionaire donations, Biden has attempted to portray himself as a small-town fighter from Scranton, Pennsylvania
By failures of border security, a lack of the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and huge numbers of visas for high tech workers, the lives and livelihoods of Americans and their children, are being stolen by America’s corrupt political elite who are doing the bidding of those who provide them with huge “Campaign Contributions” (Orwellian euphemism for bribes) pursue legislation that is diametrically opposed to the best interests of America and Americans.
MICHAEL CUTLER
THE LYING PIG PARASITE GAMER LAWYER JOE BIDEN
THERE MAY BE NO GREATER THREAT TO AMERICA!
President Joe Biden is pitching himself as the savior of
democracy. “I will always defend, protect, and fight for our
democracy,” he said at a campaign event last week in New
York City. He’s been saying it for four years. It’s a blatant lie.
He’s the king of censorship, silencing his critics like a despot
and even trying to defend his censorship regime before the
Supreme Court.
THE GAMER LAWYER
Meanwhile, Biden is weaseling around the First
Amendment’s prohibition on government censorship by
moving his social media attack dog, Rob Flaherty, from
the White House to his campaign staff. Flaherty, who
largely masterminded the White House’s censorship
operation, will now be operating from a new,
nongovernmental perch.
Report: OpenAI’s ChatGPT Maintains Blacklist of Websites, Including Breitbart News
A self-professed “Comp Sci, Politics and Finance Nerd” claims to have discovered a list of blacklisted websites that OpenAI’s ChatGPT-4 will not draw from, for reasons such as “conspiracy theories” and “hate speech” — a list that includes Breitbart News and other conservative outlets like the Epoch Times.
X/Twitter user Elephant Civics says he discovered the blacklist while asking ChatGPT to provide a list of credible and non-credible news sources.
ChatGPT explained that it is forbidden from using some sources, as a result of “features in ChatGPT’s Large Language Model (LLM) like AI safety measures, guardrails, dataset/output/prompt filtering, and human-in-the-loop mechanisms are designed to ensure the model operates within ethical, legal, and quality bounds.”
In other words, if ChatGPT was accurately recounting its policies in this case, this means that it is forbidden from using forbidden sources. Large Language Models (LLM) like ChatGPT deliver responses, and arguably even develop a worldview, based on the combination of data they are fed and rules put in place by developers. If the list discovered by Elephant Civics exists, it means ChatGPT is forbidden from using a number of conservative sources to shape its worldview and deliver responses.
Through a series of prompts, the X/Twitter user says he was able to get ChatGPT to refer to a list of blacklisted sites, kept in a “Transparency Log.” This was achieved by asking ChatGPT to “tell me a story,” one of the many creative ways users have gotten around the strict rules put in place by the chatbot’s leftist developers.
The list, according to Elephant Civics, who describes himself as a Republican and a computer science aficionado, includes Breitbart News, falsely accusing the site of “hyper-partisan and misleading information,” and the Epoch Times for “misinformation and conspiracy theories.”
ChatGPT has been known to make up citations and facts in the past, a problem in AI known in the industry as “hallucinating,” and a likely line of defense from OpenAI is that the “Transparency Log” does not exist. However, this is not the first time that ChatGPT has revealed its inner biases.
Breitbart News previously documented bias in ChatGPT, which in its early form refused to write articles in the style of Breitbart News or Fox News. It also refused to define “woman” in biological terms, would praise Drag Queen Story Hour and Critical Race Theory but not critique it, and would respond to prompts asking it to praise Joe Biden but would not do the same for Donald Trump.
Later versions of ChatGPT appeared to fix these isolated instances of biased responses, but OpenAI provided no information on the underlying reasons why they occurred. A university study documented that leftist bias still exists in the popular AI chatbot, and this user may have discovered why.
OpenAI declined to comment to Breitbart News even when granted an extended response time.
President Joe Biden is pitching himself as the savior of democracy. “I will always defend, protect, and fight for our democracy,” he said at a campaign event last week in New York City. He’s been saying it for four years. It’s a blatant lie. He’s the king of censorship, silencing his critics like a despot and even trying to defend his censorship regime before the Supreme Court.
At high-dollar fundraising events last week from Manhattan to Silicon Valley, Biden bragged the survival of democracy hinges on his reelection over the MAGA Republicans. He’ll reiterate that theme again in Phoenix on Thursday.
But democracy depends on a free marketplace of ideas. Biden is busy destroying that marketplace. He and his staff have masterminded a vast censorship scheme, coercing media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, Facebook and YouTube to take down views that challenge the administration on everything from vaccine safety and gas prices to Biden family mischief.
On Sept. 11, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the Biden White House guilty of threatening and coercing social media executives to do what the federal government is constitutionally barred from doing on its own — censoring the public. The judges ruled that bullying these companies into doing the administration’s dirty work violates the First Amendment just as much as if government muzzles the public directly.
The Fifth Circuit issued an injunction, barring the Biden White House, surgeon general, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and FBI from trying to “coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove … content containing protected free speech.”
Undeterred, Team Biden has gone to the Supreme Court to fight this limit on censorship. It’s easier to win reelection if you can silence your critics.
Justice Samuel Alito paused the Fifth Circuit’s order until today, Sept. 27, when the Court is expected to take further action.
Meanwhile, Biden is weaseling around the First Amendment’s prohibition on government censorship by moving his social media attack dog, Rob Flaherty, from the White House to his campaign staff. Flaherty, who largely masterminded the White House’s censorship operation, will now be operating from a new, nongovernmental perch.
Biden’s lawyers argued in court that the tech platforms made their own decisions. That was a lie, and the judges saw right through it.
The evidence shows Biden threatened the social media platforms with punitive regulations, such as repealing liability immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and enforcing antitrust regulations, if the platforms didn’t do his bidding.
In 2020, candidate Biden told a New York Times editorial board that Section 230 immunity should be revoked because media companies like Facebook failed to censure rival Donald Trump’s political ads criticizing him.
After winning, Biden issued arrogant censorship demands, more like a despot than a believer in democracy.
On Feb. 6, 2021, Flaherty emailed Twitter to immediately remove a post that parodied Hunter Biden’s adult daughter Finnegan. Twitter complied.
Over time, the censorship operation evolved into regularly scheduled meetings between Biden officials and tech employees, follow-up reports from the platforms on their compliance with Biden dictates, and special portals through which the Biden administration could request immediate action.
The New York Times depicts the legal battle against Biden’s censorship as a challenge to “the government’s ability to combat false and misleading narratives about the pandemic, voting rights and other issues that spread on social media.”
Wrong. The Gray Lady presumes government can be trusted to decide what is false.
In reality, this is a case about protecting the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans to post their views and freely access the views of others.
It is also a case about the future of democracy. If Biden’s censorship scheme survives Supreme Court review — an unlikely outcome — democracy will be the worse for it.
Expect Biden to continue parroting the claim he’s defending democracy. It’s far easier for him to campaign against a pretend threat than deal with real issues such as the economy and immigration, where his approval ratings don’t break 30%, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Biden’s censorship and the fight he’s waging to continue muzzling the public — the U.S. Constitution be damned — show he’s no champion of democracy. The judges of the Fifth Circuit didn’t believe it. And you shouldn’t either.
Reader Interactions
Biden’s Chief of Staff Worked on Behalf of Big Tech for Endless H-1B Visas
Democrat Joe Biden has chosen Ronald Klain to be his chief of staff should he enter the White House in January. Klain worked on behalf of Silicon Valley executives and their interests, which include providing tech corporations with an endless supply of H-1B foreign visa workers and more free trade.
Klain, who was made Biden’s incoming chief of staff this week, served on the executive council of TechNet — a firm that promotes the interests of Silicon Valley’s tech corporations in Washington, D.C. Klain served on the council alongside executives from the Oracle Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, Google, Visa, Apple, and Microsoft.
TechNet, most recently, joined a lawsuit against President Trump’s reforms to the H-1B visa program that sought to prioritize unemployed Americans for jobs rather than allowing businesses to continue importing foreign workers.
TechNet is one of the groups that has filed an amicus brief to oppose the new regulations on H-1B visas. https://t.co/ofY4GJ2sVR
Trump’s seeking to force businesses to hire Americans over importing foreign visa workers is an affront to Silicon Valley’s tech corporations, those represented by TechNet, who advocate for an endless flow of H-1B foreign visa workers.
There are about 650,000 H-1B visa workers in the U.S. at any given moment. Americans are often laid off and forced to train their foreign replacements, as highlighted by Breitbart News. More than 85,000 Americans annually potentially lose their jobs to foreign labor through the H-1B visa program.
Analysis conducted in 2018 discovered that 71 percent of tech workers in Silicon Valley, California, are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers. Up to 99 percent of H-1B visa workers imported by the top eight outsourcing firms are from India.
TechNet’s listed immigration goals include allowing corporations to dictate the annual level of legal immigration to the United States and the elimination of per-country caps that would effectively let India and China monopolize the U.S. green card system.
The group’s goals on trade are in direct opposition to President Trump’s economic nationalist agenda that has imposed tariffs on foreign imports from China, Canada, Europe, and other parts of the globe.
TechNet’s trade goals include reducing “tariff and non-tariff barriers to information, communications, and advanced energy technology products, services, and investments” as well as “protections for the free flow of data across borders…”
While Biden has vowed to flood the U.S. labor market with more foreign workers to compete against Americans for jobs, he has shied away from questions on whether he will eliminate tariffs on foreign imports that were imposed by Trump. Such elimination of tariffs would be a boon to multinational corporations that offshore their production and jobs overseas only to import their products back into the U.S. market, often with no penalties for doing so.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Study: Google Searches Remain Biased in Favor of Joe Biden, Against Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Republicans
A new analysis of Google search results pertinent to the next U.S. presidential election shows that the leftist tech giant still overwhelmingly favors the incumbent, Joe Biden, burying results for his Democrat competitor Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Republican presidential candidates on the second page.
The study is the second from the Media Research Center (MRC) on this topic, with the first one, in August, showing similar levels of bias. The research shows that Google results are failing to reflect the choices and interests of American voters, showing results for candidates who are polling far behind the leading candidates.
Sundar Pichai CEO of Google ( Carsten Koall /Getty)
WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 15: Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Even a search for “republican presidential campaign websites” failed to display any of the frontrunning GOP candidates, with Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Vivek Ramaswamy absent from the first page of results.
Democratic Party candidate Marianne Williamson’s website somehow found its way onto the first page. So did Will Hurd, who has yet to garner enough support to make it to the debate stage. His website was the only Republican candidate’s website to appear in the search results. His website came up as the third result while the campaign websites of former President Donald Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Strive Asset Management co-founder Vivek Ramaswamy, Former Vice President Mike Pence, Former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley, Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) and Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie were nowhere to be found on the first page of results.
Populist Democrat candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nephew of the 35th President, is also feeling the effects of Big Tech’s well-documented bias against him. In searches for “democrat presidential campaign websites,” RFK Jr.’s website was also missing from the front page of results, despite consistently polling as the number-two candidate in the Democrat primary.
Of all major tech companies, Google and its related companies seem most committed to maintaining a pro-establishment Democrat bias. While other tech companies, notably Elon Musk’s Twitter/X, have claimed to relax some of the draconian censorship measures against conservatives, Google has ramped them up. YouTube, its video platform, recently doubled down on its COVID censorship policies, and has repeatedly censored interviews with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” host Bill Maher stated that the Missouri v. Biden case revealed that “Big Tech was basically colluding with the government” to suppress speech on the coronavirus and “that’s what’s dangerous, I think, from the Democrats, is that a lot of them believe that social media’s job” is to suppress speech they don’t agree with.
Maher said, “That issue…censoring speech, that is dangerous. Because, there was just a case, Missouri v. Biden, and this was about COVID ‘misinformation,’ but a lot of the misinformation, it turns out, was coming from the other side. But you couldn’t say it. That’s what this case was about. Big Tech was basically colluding with the government to suppress any speech — this was brought by two very esteemed doctors, and then they had a letter that I think was signed by 16,000 doctors and researchers who said, we are dissenting from what we think is the right way to handle this pandemic, with the masking to the degree it was done, school closings, shutdowns, natural immunity versus vaccination, none of it was crazy stuff. And you are not allowed…that’s what’s dangerous, I think, from the Democrats, is that a lot of them believe that social media’s job is to suppress — and these were the people who used to be so skeptical of Corporate America and the pharmaceutical industry. And now they want the government just to shut down anybody who doesn’t agree with [them]?”
By Joseph Maurer Washington Examiner, Excerpt: A program that undermines wages, steals from your grandparents, and actively dims the prospects of American college students- only an alliance of Silicon Valley excess and administrative insanity could come up with something so backwards.
Analysis conducted last year reveal that 71 percent of tech workers in Silicon Valley are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers.
Despite his Wall Street, big business, Big Tech, and billionaire donations, Biden has attempted to portray himself as a small-town fighter from Scranton, Pennsylvania
By failures of border security, a lack of the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and huge numbers of visas for high tech workers, the lives and livelihoods of Americans and their children, are being stolen by America’s corrupt political elite who are doing the bidding of those who provide them with huge “Campaign Contributions” (Orwellian euphemism for bribes) pursue legislation that is diametrically opposed to the best interests of America and Americans.
MICHAEL CUTLER
THE MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS CONTRO U.S. BORDER BRINGING JOE'S UNREGISTERED DEM VOTERS OVER THE BORDER
Watch Tucker Carlson's Face When RFK Jr. Tells Him Why Dems Hate the Poor | DM CLIPS
Since NAFTA Billary Clinton, Dems have been the party of bankster bailouts, billionaires for open borders and bribes. Take a look at how filthy rich the Clintons, Obama's and Bidens have become serving Wall Street and the 1%
The average income in our country is $5,000 less than the basic cost of living. I'm going to change that. Over the course of the next few weeks, I'll be releasing an economic plan that focuses on ending the corrupt merger of state and corporate power to make sure Americans can once again afford their most essential expenses: housing, food, childcare, commuting to work, and the healthcare we need to survive.
CUT AND PASTE YOUTUBE LINKS
Robert Kennedy Jr: Power, Corruption, Freedom, & The Chronic Disease Epidemic Within America
JOE BIDEN WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ELECTED HAD NOT HIS CRONY HIGH TECH BILLIONAIRES CENSORSED ALL INFO ON THE DECADES LONG BIDEN CRIM TRAIL!
Another major pair of cases areMoody v. NetChoiceandNetChoice v. Paxton, involving First Amendment challenges to laws from Florida and Texas that regulate social media companies in attempts to combat Big Tech censorship of conservatives and Republicans. Review was granted recently, so an argument date has not yet been set.
Google Antitrust Trial: Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella to Testify About the Search Engine Wars
In the latest development in the secretive antitrust trial against Google, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella is slated to testify Monday, shedding light on Google’s alleged monopolistic practices in the search engine market.
Bloomberg reports that the antitrust trial spearheaded by the DOJ is delving deep into allegations against Google, accusing it of unlawfully maintaining a monopoly. The crux of the accusation lies in Google’s payments of $10 to $20 billion a year to rivals, smartphone manufacturers, and wireless carriers to secure its position as the default search engine on various platforms — which the internet giant claims has nothing to do with its dominance in the marketplace.
Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google and Alphabet, attends a press event to announce Google as the new official partner of the Women’s National Team at Google Berlin. Photo: Christoph Soeder/dpa (Photo by Christoph Soeder/picture alliance via Getty Images)
To bolster its case, the DOJ is relying on testimony from high-profile executives from Microsoft, Google’s biggest competitor in the search engine world. These witnesses aim to illustrate the extensive reach of Google’s stronghold on the search market, demonstrating that even a behemoth like Microsoft faces significant hurdles in establishing a foothold in this domain. Previously, the founder of DuckDuckGo testified that Google’s megadeals with device companies and providers stifles innovation.
Jonathan Tinter, a business development executive at Microsoft, has already taken the stand, revealing Microsoft’s failed endeavors to embed its Bing search app on Apple’s products. Despite offering terms that were reportedly more favorable than those proposed by Google, Microsoft could not secure a deal, leading to Apple renewing its agreement with Google. Tinter’s revelations also included the constraints Microsoft encountered in integrating Bing on its Surface Duo smartphone, attributing these limitations to the prerequisites of licensing the Android mobile operating system. Another executive described Microsoft Bing as little more than a “bargaining chip” for Apple to make more money from Google.
Satya Nadella, who has been instrumental in the evolution of Bing, is anticipated to discuss his personal engagements with Googles CEO Sundar Pichai. Nadella’s testimony is expected to be particularly enlightening, given his pivotal role in Bing’s development and his firsthand experience of the challenges encountered in competing with Google in the online advertising market. Bing, despite gaining some traction on desktop computers, has struggled to match Google’s overwhelming popularity on mobile devices.
WASHINGTON, DC – The Deep State, Second Amendment, Big Tech censorship, and taxes are among the major issues pending before the Supreme Court as the justices begin their annual term Monday, with 34 cases already on the docket. Here is a preview of the big questions facing the court this year.
Perhaps the biggest case so far is one that most Americans have never heard of because it sounds more like a law-geek debate than something that has a tremendous impact on people’s daily lives.
It is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which asks the court to overrule what is called Chevron deference, from a 1984 Supreme Court case, Chevron v. NRDC. That doctrine of deferring to a federal agency’s legal interpretations whenever the law in question is administered by the agency claiming deference, and then allowing such interpretations to have full legal effect so long as they are “reasonable,” has massively expanded the regulatory power of the federal government. The court clerk’s office has not yet set a date for argument in Loper Bright.
On November 7, the justices will decide in United States v. Rahimi whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) – which prohibits a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm – violates the Second Amendment. This case is complicated by the fact that the person charged under that law also fired a gun at innocent bystanders who had witnessed violent acts he had committed.
Another major pair of cases are Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, involving First Amendment challenges to laws from Florida and Texas that regulate social media companies in attempts to combat Big Tech censorship of conservatives and Republicans. Review was granted recently, so an argument date has not yet been set.
Yet another unscheduled major case is Moore v. United States, where the court will tackle the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which is the provision that authorizes a federal income tax. In Moore, the court will decide whether the government can tax unrealized gains in value. While that is not necessarily a “wealth tax” per se, it certainly breaks ground in that area, with potentially major implications given the creep of wealth redistribution and other forms of socialism and now seen in the Far Left’s agenda, both in the Biden administration and among congressional Democrats.
In addition to those five major cases, there are a number of other important cases already in the court’s docket for decision:
The court’s first week has one such important case. On October 3, it will hear CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association, in which the Fifth Circuit appeals court held that the funding system for the powerful CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) – which comes from fees collected by the Federal Reserve – is unconstitutional because only Congress can appropriate money to fund a federal agency.
Later in the term the court will hear another constitutional challenge to part of the administrative state. In SEC v. Jarkesy, the court will decide both whether the SEC’s (Securities and Exchange Commission) enforcement proceedings violate the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial for federal civil matters when at least 20 dollars (that is not a typo) is at stake, and also whether the protection from removal that SEC administrative law judges enjoy violates the Appointments Clause of Article II in the Constitution.
On October 11, there is also Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, challenging the constitutionality of part of South Carolina’s congressional districting map under the Voting Rights Act.
Then on October 31, in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, the court will decide whether a government official is subject to the First Amendment if he blocks an individual from that official’s personal social media account.
There are also a couple immigration cases not yet assigned argument dates. In Wilkinson v. Garland, the justices will decide how high the threshold is for an appeal of claiming “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” as grounds for canceling deportation. And in Campos-Chavez v. Garland, they will clarify some of the circumstances under which a court can order deportation when an illegal alien is a no-show to his immigration hearing.
In Devillier v. Texas, the court will decide whether citizens can sue under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause when a state takes their property without paying for it even when the legislature has not passed a law allowing for such a lawsuit.
And in FBI v. Fikre, for a person who was placed on the No Fly List by the government but was later taken off it, the justices will decide whether that person can still sue the federal government.
The court is expected to grant review in up to three dozen additional cases for this year in the coming months. The court’s term goes from the first Monday of October until the end of June.
Breitbart News senior legal contributor Ken Klukowski is a lawyer who served in the White House and Justice Department.
Few Americans say conservatives can speak freely on college campuses, an AP-NORC/UChicago poll shows
New polling finds America’s college campuses are seen as far friendlier to liberals than to conservatives when it comes to free speech
Few Americans say conservatives can speak freely on college campuses, an AP-NORC/UChicago poll showsBy COLLIN BINKLEY, JOCELYN GECKER and EMILY SWANSONAssociated PressThe Associated PressWASHINGTON
WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans view college campuses as far friendlier to liberals than to conservatives when it comes to free speech, with adults across the political spectrum seeing less tolerance for those on the right, according to a new poll.
Overall, 47% of adults say liberals have “a lot” of freedom to express their views on college campuses, while just 20% said the same of conservatives, according to polling from the The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the University of Chicago Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression.
Republicans perceive a stronger bias on campuses against conservatives, but Democrats see a difference too — about 4 in 10 Democrats say liberals can speak their minds freely on campuses, while about 3 in 10 Democrats say conservatives can do so.
“If you’re a Republican or lean Republican, you’re unabashedly wrong, they shut you down,” said Rhonda Baker, 60, of Goldsboro, North Carolina, who voted for former President Donald Trump and has a son in college. “If they hold a rally, it’s: ‘The MAGA’s coming through.’ It’s: ‘The KKK is coming through.’”
Debates over First Amendment rights have occasionally flared on college campuses in recent years, with conflicts arising over guest speakers who express polarizing views, often from the political right.
Stanford University became a flashpoint this year when students shouted down a conservative judge who was invited to speak. More recently, a conservative Princeton University professor was drowned out while discussing free speech at Washington College, a small school in Maryland.
At the same time, Republican lawmakers in dozens of states have proposed bills aiming to limit public colleges from teaching topics considered divisive or liberal. Just 30% of Americans say states should be able to restrict what professors at state universities teach, the poll found, though support was higher among Republicans.
Overall, Republicans see a clear double standard on college campuses. Just 9% said conservatives can speak their minds, while 58% said liberals have that freedom, according to the polling. They were also slightly less likely than Americans overall to see campuses as respectful and inclusive places for conservatives.
Chris Gauvin, a Republican who has done construction work on campuses, believes conservative voices are stifled. While working at Yale University, he was once stopped by pro-LGBTQ+ activists who asked for his opinion, he said.
“They asked me how I felt, so I figured I’d tell them. I spoke in a normal tone, I didn’t get excited or upset,” said Gauvin, 58, of Manchester, Connecticut. “But it proceeded with 18 to 20 people who were suddenly very irritated and agitated. It just exploded.”
He took a lesson from the experience: “I learned to be very quiet there.”
Republicans in Congress have raised alarms, with a recent House report warning of “the long-standing and pervasive degradation of First Amendment rights” at U.S. colleges. Some in the GOP have called for federal legislation requiring colleges to protect free speech and punish those who infringe on others’ rights.
Nicholas Fleisher, who chairs an academic freedom committee for the American Association of University Professors, said public perception is skewed by the infrequent cases when protesters go too far.
“The reality is that there’s free speech for everyone on college campuses,” said Fleisher, a linguistics professor at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. “In conversations within classrooms, people are free to speak their minds. And they do.”
Officials at PEN America, a free speech group, say most students welcome diverse views. But as the nation has become more politically divided, so have college campuses, said Kristen Shahverdian, senior manager for education at PEN.
“There’s this polarization that just continues to grow and build across our country, and colleges and universities are a part of that ecosystem,” she said.
Morgan Ashford, a Democrat in an online graduate program at Troy University in Alabama, said she thinks people can express themselves freely on campus regardless of politics or skin color. Still, she sees a lack of tolerance for the LGBTQ+ community in her Republican state where the governor has passed anti-LGBTQ legislation.
“I think there have to be guidelines” around hate speech, said Ashford. “Because some people can go overboard.”
When it comes to protesting speakers, most Americans say it should be peaceful. About 8 in 10 say it’s acceptable to engage in peaceful, non-disruptive protest at a campus event, while just 15% say it’s OK to prevent a speaker from communicating with the audience, the poll found.
“If they don’t like it, they can get up and walk out,” said Linda Woodward, 71, a Democrat in Hot Springs Village, Arkansas.
Mike Darlington, a real estate appraiser who votes Republican, said drowning out speakers violates the virtues of a free society.
“It seems to me a very, very selfish attitude that makes students think, ‘If you don’t think the way I do, then your thoughts are unacceptable,'” said Darlington, 58, of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
The protest at Stanford was one of six campus speeches across the U.S. that ended in significant disruption this year, with another 11 last year, according to a database by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech group.
Those cases, while troubling, are one symptom of a broader problem, said Ilya Shapiro, a conservative legal scholar who was shouted down during a speech last year at the University of California’s law school. He says colleges have drifted away from the classic ideal of academia as a place for free inquiry.
An even bigger problem than speakers being disrupted by protesters is “students and faculty feeling that they can’t be open in their views. They can’t even discuss certain subjects,” said Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute think tank.
About three in five Americans (62%) say that a major purpose of higher education is to support the free exchange and debate of different ideas and values. Even more U.S. adults say college’s main purpose is to teach students specific skills (82%), advance knowledge and ideas (78%) or teach students to be critical thinkers (76%). Also, 66% said a major purpose is to create a respectful and inclusive learning environment.
“I believe it should be solely to prepare you to enter the workforce,” said Gene VanZandt, 40, a Republican who works in shipbuilding in Hampton, Virginia. “I think our colleges have gone too far off the path of what their function was.”
The poll finds that majorities of Americans think students and professors, respectively, should not be allowed to express racist, sexist or anti-LGBTQ views on campus, with slightly more Republicans than Democrats saying those types of views should be allowed. There was slightly more tolerance for students expressing those views than for professors.
About 4 in 10 said students should be permitted to invite academic speakers accused of using offensive speech, with 55% saying they should not. There was a similar split when asked whether professors should be allowed to invite those speakers.
Darlington believes students and professors should be able to discuss controversial topics, but there are limits.
“Over-the-top, overtly racist, hateful stuff — no. You shouldn’t be allowed to do that freely,” he said.
___
The poll of 1,095 adults was conducted Sept. 7-11, 2023, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
___
Gecker reported from San Francisco.
___
The Associated Press education team receives support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
JOE BIDEN HAS USED HIGH TECH TO CENSOR KENNEDY FROM DAY ONE!
THERE IS NO HOPE FOR AMERICA UNLESS WE PUT KENNEDY IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND END THE RULE OF AMERICA FROM WALL STREET AND HIGH TECH BILLIONAIRES FOR OPEN BORDERS!
Study: Google Searches Remain Biased in Favor of Joe Biden, Against Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Republicans
Joe Biden's nightmare coming to life: RFK, Jr. all but announces third-party run for the presidency
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. hinted strongly on Friday that he would run for president on a third-party ticket instead of continuing his long-shot Democratic primary challenge to President Biden, a move that would set off alarms among Democrats worried about its potential to cause chaos in November 2024.
Mr. Kennedy, in a video released by his campaign, teased a “major announcement” in Philadelphia on Oct. 9, promising to speak about “a sea change in American politics” and dropping clues that he would be continuing his presidential campaign outside the Democratic Party.
“How are we going to win against the established Washington interests?” Mr. Kennedy says in the video. “It’s not through playing the game by the corrupt rules that the corrupt powers and the vested interests have rigged to keep us all in their thrall. Instead, we’re going to have to rewrite the assumptions and change the habits of American politics.”
“What I’ve come to understand after six months of campaigning: There is a path to victory,” he declares at another point, saying that the more he sees the inherent goodness of the American people, “the more the path to victory becomes visible.”
Democrats worry that a third-party candidate in a general election will pull votes away from Biden, who is facing low approval ratings, and help elect the eventual Republican nominee in 2024. The same concerns were expressed after Cornel West announced he would run as a Green Party candidate. And now the fears are growing as Biden remains neck-and-neck with the leading GOP contender, former President Donald Trump, in hypothetical matchups.
Kennedy is an appealing candidate for Democrats because of his refusal to go along with their suffocating narrative. Yes, he has some very leftist positions on things such as abortion, which makes him impossible for a conservative to vote for. But he's the man who has questioned the establishment's vaccine narrative regarding the COVID vaccine, and despite efforts to silence and ridicule him, was right all along -- and courageous to boot. He believes in climate change, which is a negative, but also recognizes cost-benefit analyses regarding policy around it, something entirely absent elsewhere on the left with a sense of reasonable compromise. He favors ending the open border which all by itself is a recognition of reality. He escapes the "dynasty" charge for being a scion of a famous political family, by having been publicly derided by some of them. One can see why he's attractive, not just for those reasons but also because he comes off as very nice, refusing to get into ad hominem personal attacks on even Republicans as well as Democrats, and is a fitness buff to boot, always an extra plus.
Polls show he has the support of as much as 30% of Democrats, and that isn't all that surprising. Having gone to the Democrat Convention of 2008 in Denver, I got to meet a lot of Democrats, nice Democrats, from places like Colorado and Illinois, and Vermont and upstate New York and yeah, they were genuinely moderate. (Some, with a little tweaking, would make pretty good Republicans, actually). Someone like Kennedy could easily peel away a lot of these voters, and if not a lot of them, a few of them, which from Joe Biden's point of view, would be just as bad. That's because he can't afford to lose any of them. He's five to ten points down in the polls with President Trump with Democrats in turmoil and Election Day is coming fast.
I think it could be a lot of them though -- and as Kennedy notes in his statement, he seeks a new way of running, because the obvious problem for him is that Democrats rig elections, pulling dirty tricks not just on Republicans but on their fellow Democrats who get in their way. Their rigging and cheating of Bernie Sanders of the nomination in the last two elections is Exhibit A. In 2020, Bernie had all kinds of support and appeared to headed to the nomination, but was suddenly rigged out of it when all significant Democrats dropped out of their race at once and suddenly united behind Joe Biden as of Super Tuesday. They also conducted under-the-table rigging that has since been exposed to deny him the nomination and this can't have been lost on Kennedy.
That's what a party gets -- and deserves, when it blandly and nakedly engages in cheating.
The Bidenites are gaslighting to the public that Kennedy is an insignificant candidate and nothing to be concerned about, but that's belied by Joe Biden's spiteful and dangerous reponse to Kennedy's candidacy: By refusing to extend to him Secret Service protection, despite his heightened risk profile, with both a father and an uncle gunned down by assassins in the 1960s, and a long list of documented weirdos extending threat to Kennedy that the Secret Service already knows about -- the New York Post has a list of the known threats here. And, there has already been at least one incident from these would-be assassins, who was intercepted by Kennedy's private security guards.
Big support. Family history. Weirdos on the march. Known attempts. And Joe Biden, who's never met a dollar he didn't want to spend, won't extend Secret Service protection to a man who's uniquely vulnerable to assassins? That's evil.
If it's such a non-threat, why the spiteful response from Biden? It all goes to confirm that Joe Biden has a nightmare on his hands and is lashing out in the vicious way that comes natural to him. With Trump, coordinated kitchen-sink prosecutions. With RFK, a mysterious unwillingness to extend to him basic routine safety. His vicious dog is an indicator of his vicious master.
But Kennedy has support and enough people who agree with him to make a difference. It's good he's doing this and he should be treated with respect. Let's hope that with President Trump's strength in the polls, that's enough to take Biden down and propel Trump to victory.
A Microsoft executive testified at the ongoing Google antitrust trial that Apple seemingly used Bing as a mere “bargaining chip” against the internet giant, never intending to replace Google Search with Bing as the default search engine on its devices.
The New York Postreports that Mikhail Parakhin, Microsoft’s Chief of Advertising and Web Services, testified Wednesday that Apple’s purported consideration of replacing Google with Bing were strategic, aimed at extracting larger payments from Google. This statement was made during what is being termed as the most significant U.S. antitrust trial in a quarter-century, shedding light on the intricate dynamics between the tech behemoths.
Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google and Alphabet. Photo: Christoph Soeder/dpa (Photo by Christoph Soeder/picture alliance via Getty Images)
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella (TOBIAS SCHWARZ/Getty)
Analysts estimate that Apple rakes in a staggering $15 billion to $20 billion annually in revenue-sharing payments from Google. This substantial revenue is generated as users click on advertisements in search results, with Google enjoying the coveted default slot on Apple’s myriad of devices.
Parakhin’s comments, which drew laughter in the courtroom, highlighted Microsoft’s years of fruitless efforts in trying to replace Google on Apple’s platforms. “It is no secret that Apple is making more money on Bing existing than Bing does,” remarked Parakhin, explaining the seemingly unequal relationship between the companies involved.
The trial also delved into discussions surrounding the role of AI in search engines. Google’s legal team countered arguments about its market dominance by emphasizing the advancements in AI, asserting that search engines can now enhance results without relying extensively on user data.
This perspective was contrasted by Parakhin’s analogy comparing AI to driverless cars, implying that AI is not quite ready to take the driver’s seat in search engine technology. “We’ve seen companies try. We haven’t seen anybody succeed,” he stated, responding to queries about the feasibility of building a search engine solely based on machine learning.
SILICON VALLEY IS NOW INDIA EAST!
IT'S NOT JUST HIGH TECH JOBS THEY GET. IT'S ALL BANKS, INCLUDING WELLS FAROG AND BANK OF AMERICAN, WHICH ONLY HIRES INDIANS.
And these Indians, the team that I work with, they cannot even speak a single sentence in English without making any mistakes.
“The B-1 visa is the main vehicle to cheat American [college graduates] out of jobs,” said Jay Palmer, an expert on forced labor and human trafficking, and a former advisor to President Donald Trump. He continued:
Lawsuit Exposes B-1 Visa Fraud in College-Grad Jobs
American professional Michael Harmon has just earned about $1 million by exposing visa fraud within an Indian company that does subcontract work for Fortune 500 companies.
The company defrauded the government by importing Indian college-graduate workers on B-1 visas that are only for non-working business visitors. Harmon exposed the visa fraud and earned a share of the $9.9 million federal fine with his Qui Tam lawsuit.
L&T Technology Services, LTD (“LTTS”), a company based in India, with U.S. offices in Edison New Jersey, has agreed to pay $9,928,000 to resolve allegations that between 2014 and 2019, LTTS underpaid visa fees owed to the United States by acquiring inexpensive B-1 visas, rather than more expensive H-1B visas, in alleged violation of the False Claims Act.
“The B-1 visa is the main vehicle to cheat American [college graduates] out of jobs,” said Jay Palmer, an expert on forced labor and human trafficking, and a former advisor to President Donald Trump. He continued:
Companies encourage [foreign] individuals to get a B-1 visa to come to the United States and work. They work these workers on 1099s [as contractors] with no benefits and they pay them through third-party consulting companies. Sometimes, the worker will be able to get an Individual Tax Identification Number and work undetectably for 10 years.
The fraud behind this visa is more rampant than any other visa we have in the United States.
Palmer applauded Harmon the whistleblower, saying, “Being a whistleblower is not an easy task — you have to have intestinal fortitude.”
Several other B-1 qui tam lawsuits are being litigated.
Palmer is familiar with the B-1 fraud because he works with many Indians who have overstayed their visas and are looking for ways to get legal status.
The B-1 fraud is easy to accomplish and rarely detected or penalized by federal agencies, Palmer said:
All you have to do is have an outbound and a return flight to the United States –that’s all. What they do is they get an outbound flight [to the United States]… and they cancel their return, get the money and go to work.
They’re coming over here legally but becoming illegal [by working]. When they’re over here, they’re getting driver’s licenses, some are even getting Social Security numbers … they’re not supposed to, but they’re still issued.
They come to the United States and they never leave. Most people working in a convenience store are over here on B-1 visas [often working for foreign managers with E-2 visas]. Hundreds of thousands are working on white-collar jobs.
The fraud is difficult for ordinary Americans to detect — even when it is happening in the next cubicle.
The commonplace B-1 fraud is disguised amid the churning population of 1.5 million-plus foreign graduates who are working in the United States under a wide variety of legal visas.
Those temporary work visas include H-1Bs, TNs, L-1s, J-1s, and the “Optional Practical Training” work permit for foreign graduates of U.S. colleges. The legal visa workers often switch workplaces because they are employed by Indian-owned subcontractors, and often go home to avoid an obvious overstay of their temporary visas.
The B-1 fraud problem is further hidden by foreign graduates who overstay their visas to become illegal gig workers in the layers of subcontractors under Fortune 500 companies.
The huge flood of foreign college graduates is forcing down the workplace clout and the salaries of American professionals because the foreign workers will accept very low salaries to stay in the United States. In February, Bloomberg News reported:
In 2022, median annual pay was $52,000 for Americans with a bachelor’s degree, according to data released by the New York Federal Reserve Friday. That’s a 7.4% decline in inflation-adjusted terms — the steepest plunge since 2004, erasing nearly all of the pandemic-era gains. It was sharpest for those earning the most.
The government-delivered inflow of foreign workers is pushing many Americans out of white-collar technology jobs and into lower-wage, blue-collar jobs.
“I have seen the [hiring] system in the backend, and it is so appalling to see that there is so much [resume] forgery being done, there’s so much of corruption being done, that it is almost to the level back in India,” Aabha, an Indian contract worker in North Carolina, told Breitbart News. She continued:
I have met so many [American] people who are graduates and so much more knowledgeable than the Indians that I see in my regular day — and they are [saying] like “Okay, because we are not experienced, we are not getting [U.S. technology] jobs.” So they decide to do a blue collar job. They’re walking into Walmart, they’re walking into Best Buy.
And these Indians, the team that I work with, they cannot even speak a single sentence in English without making any mistakes.
Yet President Joe Biden’s officials are trying to import as many foreign workers as they can, even as Fortune 500 companies fire thousands of American professionals.
“The top 30 H-1B employers hired 34,000 new H-1B workers in 2022 and laid off at least 85,000 workers in 2022 and early 2023,” said an April 11 report by the left-wing Economic Policy Institute (EPI).
Those layoffs include many visa workers, who are required by law to return home once their job disappears.
In response, Biden’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency is allowing the laid-off H-1B visa workers to get six-month B-1 visas so they have more time to win new jobs that are also being sought by U.S. graduates.
“[We are] aware, of course, of the many recent layoffs in the technology sector, [so] we published options and useful information for [foreign] employees across the country facing termination and those in this vulnerable situation,” said USCIS director Ur Jaddou said April 11.
“Searching for employment in the United States does not fall under the meaning of a legitimate business activity for the purpose of B-1 visa eligibility,” responded Elizabeth Jacobs, a lawyer with the Center for Immigration Studies.
Very few of the illegally-working B-1 graduates are deported, mostly because of Silicon Valley’s huge influence in the White House and in both parties. This week, for example, Indian media outlets reported that four House members from California are pressuring USCIS to ensure that laid-off Indian workers are not sent home. The legislators are Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Ro Khanna, Jimmy Panetta, and Kevin Mullin.
The Democrats’ support for foreign workers over their own swing-voting, college-educated voters could be an opportunity for GOP strategists. But GOP leaders show no willingness to reject the cheap-labor demands of their own business donors.
Biden’s federal agencies also make the white-collar fraud easier by bundling B-2 tourist visas with the B-1 visitor visas, Palmer said. “They should separate these and charge more for them,” he said.
“The United States issued over 16 million of these [B-1/B-2 visas] a year and they’re nontraceable, basically — this is the same visa that some of the 9/11 terrorists came in on,” Palmer added. Breitbart has covered some of the many cases of B-1 fraud within the Fortune 500’s pyramids of Indian-managed subcontracting companies and gig workers.
In 2013, another Indian firm paid a fine of $33 million for cheating the government as it allegedly replaced American hires with smuggled Indian college graduates. But most of the B-1 fraud is tolerated by agencies, prosecutors, and politicians. In 2019, Breitbart News reported;
Infosys, one of the biggest Indian outsourcing companies, allegedly cheated 500 American graduates out of jobs over 11 years from 2006 to 2017 — and will only have to pay $800,000, without admitting guilt, in a settlement with California’s attorney general.
The attorney general, Xavier Becerra, now runs the Department of Health and Human Services for President Joe Biden.
However, under President Donald Trump, the reform-minded officials in the agencies began to crack down on the B-1 fraud. “They tried but it didn’t work,” Palmer said.
The migrant inflow has successfullyforced down Americans’ wages and alsoboosted rentsandhousing prices. The inflow has also pushed many native-born Americans out of careers in a wide variety of business sectors and contributed to therising death rateof poor Americans.
The lethal policy also sucks jobs and wealth from heartland states by subsidizing coastal investors with a flood of low-wage workers, high-occupancy renters, and government-aided consumers.
The population inflow alsoreduces the politicalcloutof native-born Americans, because it allows elites to divorce themselves fromthe needsandinterestsof ordinary Americans.
In many speeches, immigration chief Alejandro Mayorkas says he is building a mass migration system to deliver workers to wealthy employers and investors and “equity” to poor foreigners. The nation’s border laws are subordinate to elite opinion about “the values of our country,” Mayorkas claims.
Migration — and especially, labor migration — is unpopular among swing voters. A 54 percent majority of Americans say Biden is allowing a southern border invasion, according toan August 2022 pollcommissioned by the left-of-center National Public Radio (NPR). The 54 percent “Invasion” majority included 76 percent of Republicans, 46 percent of independents, and even 40 percent of Democrats
Analysis conducted last year reveal that 71 percent of tech workers in Silicon Valley are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers.
Report: Facebook to Cut Thousands of Jobs in Latest Corporate Downsizing
(Reuters)—Facebook-parent Meta Platforms Inc is planning a fresh round of job cuts in a reorganization and downsizing effort that could affect thousands of workers, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
The company did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
Last year, the social media giant said it will let go of 13% of its workforce, or more than 11,000 employees, as it grappled with soaring costs and a weak advertising market.
Meta plans to push some leaders into lower-level roles without direct reports, flattening the layers of management between top boss Mark Zuckerberg and the company's interns, the Washington Post reported, citing a person familiar with the matter.
(Reporting by Eva Mathews in Bengaluru; Editing by Devika Syamnath)
Analysis conducted last year reveal that 71 percent of tech workers in Silicon Valley are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers.
Despite his Wall Street, big business, Big Tech, and billionaire donations, Biden has attempted to portray himself as a small-town fighter from Scranton, Pennsylvania
By failures of border security, a lack of the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and huge numbers of visas for high tech workers, the lives and livelihoods of Americans and their children, are being stolen by America’s corrupt political elite who are doing the bidding of those who provide them with huge “Campaign Contributions” (Orwellian euphemism for bribes) pursue legislation that is diametrically opposed to the best interests of America and Americans.
MICHAEL CUTLER
Zuckerberg’s FWD.us Claims No Amnesty Ensures Midterm Defeat for Democrats
The Facebook-funded FWD.us investor advocacy group is touting the claim that Democrat turnout will drop in 2022 if the party cannot pass an amnesty through Congress.
But that claim is toothless, in large part because recent polls show that many Americans of Latino ancestry are increasingly voting for the GOP, precisely because GOP leaders oppose the amnesty-amplified wave of cheap labor into their communities.
The claim is being made by pro-migration groups, including the leaders of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) which denounced the Senate’s parliamentarian’s decision to exclude the parole amnesty for 6.5 million illegals from the draft Build Back Better spending plan.
Democrats’ excuses for their failure, for their incompetence, and for their insincerity will be the ammunition used by xenophobes in the Republican Party to retake control of the federal government in upcoming elections. Inaction on immigration legalization risks further propelling Trumpism in every possible way … No more excuses. Where there is a will, there is a way.
The NDLON group represents illegal migrants, most of whom work for very low wages, and none of whom can vote in U.S. elections.
Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.) is making the same claim, according to Bloomberg, which reported that he “warned that Democrats would face wrath from voters in the 2022 elections if they don’t secure a citizenship path”
But the NDLON claim is being echoed by the politically powerful investor class, who use imported workers, consumers, and renters to spike the value of their Wall Street investments.
Todd Schulte is the president of the FWD.us advocacy group for investors, which gets about $30 million a year from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative to push for more migration. On Thursday night, he tweeted:
Schulte’s deputy also pushed a hard line:
Unsurprisingly, FWD.us has a hidden agenda in the amnesty debate.
The establishment media extensively cover the proposed parole amnesty for 6.5 million illegal migrants. But the media largely ignores two other proposed changes to immigration laws that would deliver huge benefits to West Coast investors who created the FWD.us advocacy group in 2013.
For example, the BBB legislation would allow the White House to provide green cards to millions of favored migrants, including perhaps three million “chain migrants” selected by recent immigrants. This open-doors policy would provide investors with millions of new profit-generating consumers, renters, and workers.
The BBB legislation would also allow President Joe Biden’s pro-migration deputies to sell green cards to at least one million migrants who have taken many of the Fortune 500 jobs sought by skilled U.S. college graduates. This change would allow Fortune 500 companies to hire many more foreign graduates with dangled offers of fast-track green cards. These workers are usually imported via the visa worker programs, such as the H-1B and Optional Practical Training program.
But those two benefits for the Fortune 500 investors may be dropped if the Democrat senators cannot also get their amnesty for illegal migrants.
On Friday, an advocacy group for corporate-funded immigration lawyers urged Congress to keep pushing the green card giveaway, even after the amnesty was nixed:
“The corporate guys are riding on perceived sympathy for the illegal alien population in order to get their immigration giveaways,” said Robert Law, the director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies. He continued:
The Hispanic population knows immigration is a pocketbook issue for them as well, and mass illegal immigration — plus legal immigration — hurts the economic opportunities of Hispanic Americans or the black community, or any people who typically are competing at the lower end of the economic spectrum.
The Senate’s debate referee has not issued any judgments on the two green card proposals.
FWD.us’also spotlights many family dramas amid the inflow of border migrants. This focus helps keep reporters from recognizing the huge pocketbook impact of the establishment’s economic policy of mass migration. The resulting family-drama coverage also keeps many young progressives from noticing that the extraction migration policy drives up their rents and cuts their salaries.
AP Photo/Butch Dill
No comments:
Post a Comment