HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » ancianita » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

ancianita

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: New England, The South, Midwest
Home country: USA
Current location: Chicago
Member since: Sat Mar 5, 2011, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 22,980

About Me

Human. Being.

Journal Archives

President Biden's Speech on Infrastructure and the U.S. Economy



Rachel Maddow Tells the Dark Joel Greenberg and Matt Gaetz Florida Man Story

and that Gaetz was the only member of both parties to vote against increasing law enforcement funding to combat child sex trafficking. The Gaetz public denial claims that this is an extortion plot against him and his family.

Start 2:40 -- 26:17



President Biden Announces Intent to Nominate 11 Judicial Candidates

from The White House

These nominees consist of attorneys who have excelled in the legal field in a wide range of positions, including as renowned jurists, public defenders, prosecutors, in the private sector, in the military, and as public servants at all levels of government.

This group also includes groundbreaking nominees, including three African American women chosen for Circuit Court vacancies, as well as candidates who, if confirmed, would be the first Muslim American federal judge in U.S. history, the first AAPI woman to ever serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of D.C., and the first woman of color to ever serve as a federal judge for the District of Maryland.

Statement from President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.:

“This trailblazing slate of nominees draws from the very best and brightest minds of the American legal profession. Each is deeply qualified and prepared to deliver justice faithfully under our Constitution and impartially to the American people — and together they represent the broad diversity of background, experience, and perspective that makes our nation strong.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/30/president-biden-announces-intent-to-nominate-11-judicial-candidates/

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Tiffany Cunningham: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Candace Jackson-Akiwumi: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit


Judge Deborah Boardman: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

Judge Lydia Griggsby: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

Julien Neals: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey


Judge Florence Y. Pan: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Judge Zahid N. Quraishi: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

Regina Rodriguez: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado


Margaret Strickland: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico

Judge Rupa Ranga Puttagunta: Nominee for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia


From The Washington Post:


U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the influential appeals court in Washington to succeed Merrick Garland as part of the largest and earliest batch of court picks by a new administration in decades.

Jackson, often considered a contender to be the first Black woman on the Supreme Court, is among Biden’s 11 nominations that include three Black women for appeals court vacancies and the first Muslim American to serve on a District Court. The group is designed to send a message about the administration’s desire for more diversity on the federal bench and how rapidly the president wants to put his mark on it.

Biden previously pledged to name the first Black woman to the high court, and his picks signal an early departure from the Trump administration, which successfully reshaped the federal courts with nominees who were overwhelmingly White and male...

The average age of Biden’s first picks is 48, allowing the judges to serve for decades if confirmed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/biden-judicial-nominees-ketanji--brown-jackson/2021/03/29/38efad34-7773-11eb-8115-9ad5e9c02117_story.html



https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=540



Rachel Maddow Slams Billionaires' Dark Money Use As Their Political Hobby

Start 4:47

Keeping this front and center should justify the nuking of the Senate filibuster.

Jane Mayer:Inside the Koch-Backed Effort to Block the Largest Election-Reform Bill in Half a Century

Jane Badass Mayer has done it. And dark money billionaires know it, buying Manchin to blow it.

Rachel is putting this before the public tonight on the #1 show on all of cable. Jane Mayer will be on Rachel's show tomorrow, Tuesday.


https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/inside-the-koch-backed-effort-to-block-the-largest-election-reform-bill-in-half-a-century


Brendan Fischer, a campaign-finance-reform advocate in favor of the legislation, said that the conference call showed that “wealthy special interests are working hard to protect a broken status quo, where billionaires and corporations are free to secretly buy influence.” After listening to the recording, Fischer, who directs the Campaign Legal Center’s Federal Reform Program, added that it exposed “the reality that cracking down on political corruption and ending dark money is popular with voters across the political spectrum.”

On the call, McKenzie, the Koch operative, cited one “ray of hope” in the fight against the reforms, noting that his research found that the most effective message was arguing that a politically “diverse coalition of groups opposed” the bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union. “In our message example that we used, we used the example of A.C.L.U., Planned Parenthood, and conservative organizations backed by Charles Koch as an example of groups that oppose H.R. 1,” he said. “I think, you know, when you put that in front of people . . . they’re, like, ‘Oh, conservatives and some liberal groups all oppose this, like, I should maybe think about this more. You know, there must be bigger implications to this if these groups are all coming together on it.’ ”

However, that test message was inaccurate. Planned Parenthood does not oppose the For the People Act. It is, in fact, on a list of organizations giving the legislation their full backing. And the A.C.L.U. supports almost all of the expansions of voting rights contained in the bill, although it has sided with the Koch groups and other conservative organizations in arguing that donors to nonprofit groups could be harassed if their names are disclosed. Advocates for greater transparency in political spending argue that there is no serious evidence of any such harassment. Asked if she could cite any examples, Kate Ruane, a senior legislative counsel at the A.C.L.U., said that the only one she knew about was atypical—the online backlash experienced by the actor Mila Kunis, after she had made a donation to a pro-abortion group in the name of Mike Pence, a staunch opponent of abortion rights.

With so little public support, the bill’s opponents have already begun pressuring individual senators. On March 20th, several major conservative groups, including Heritage Action, Tea Party Patriots Action, Freedom Works, and the local and national branches of the Family Research Council, organized a rally in West Virginia to get Senator Joe Manchin, the conservative Democrat, to come out against the legislation. They also pushed Manchin to oppose any efforts by Democrats to abolish the Senate’s filibuster rule, a tactical step that the Party would probably need to take in order to pass the bill. “The filibuster is really the only thing standing in the way of progressive far-left policies like H.R. 1, which is Pelosi’s campaign to take over America’s elections,” Noah Weinrich, the press secretary at Heritage Action, declared during a West Virginia radio interview. On Thursday, Manchin issued a statement warning Democrats that forcing the measure through the Senate would “only exacerbate the distrust that millions of Americans harbor against the U.S. government.”

Pressure tactics from dark-money groups may work on individual lawmakers. The legislation faces an uphill fight in the Senate. But, as the January 8th conference call shows, opponents of the legislation have resorted to “under-the-dome-type strategies” because the broad public is against them when it comes to billionaires buying elections.

The face of dark money




Beware Of Facebook CEOs Bearing Section 230 Reform Proposals

I want Democrats to be as smart about tech -- undoing what Wm Barr and the DOJ would have done -- as they are about undoing much of the other attempted damage by the pendejo45's autocrats.

Previous discussion on 230: https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100214781635

I hope Senator Warren gives the 230 issue more time and thought as it comes out of the House Committee. Techdirt reports more reasons why the House and Senate need to be smart about 230:

Facebook is now perhaps the leading voice for changing 230, because the company knows that it can survive without it. Others? Not so much.

Last February, Zuckerberg made it clear that Facebook was on board with the plan to undermine 230. Last fall, during another of these Congressional hearings, he more emphatically supported reforms to 230.

And, for tomorrow's hearing, [Thurs, March 25] he's driving the knife further into 230's back by outlining a plan to further cut away at 230. ...

Four separate times, Zuckerberg describes programs that Facebook has created to deal with those kinds of things as "industry-leading." But those programs are incredibly costly ... 35,000 people working in "safety and security," ... more than triple the 10,000 people in that role five years ago.

So, these proposals to create a "best practices" framework, judged by some third party, in which you only get to keep your 230 protections if you meet those best practices, won't change anything for Facebook. Facebook will argue that its practices are the best practices. That's effectively what Zuckerberg is saying ... But that will harm everyone else who can't match that. Most companies aren't going to be able to do this ...

The politics of this obviously make sense for Facebook. It's not difficult to understand how Zuckerberg gets to this point. Congress is putting tremendous pressure on him and continually attacking the company's perceived (and certainly, sometimes real) failings.
So, for him, the framing is clear: set up some rules to deal with the fake problem that so many insist is real, of there being "no incentive" for companies to do anything to deal with disinformation and other garbage, knowing full well that
(1) Facebook's own practices will likely define "best practices" or
(2) that Facebook will have enough political clout to make sure that any third party body that determines these "best practices" is thoroughly captured so as to make sure that Facebook skates by. But all those other platforms? Good luck. It will create a huge mess as everyone tries to sort out what "tier" they're in, and what they have to do to avoid legal liability -- when they're all already trying all sorts of different approaches to deal with disinformation online.

Indeed, one final problem with this "solution" is that you don't deal with disinformation by homogenization. Disinformation and disinformation practices continually evolve and change over time. The amazing and wonderful thing that we're seeing in the space right now is that tons of companies are trying very different approaches to dealing with it, and learning from those different approaches. That experimentation and variety is how everyone learns and adapts and gets to better results in the long run, rather than saying that a single "best practices" setup will work. Indeed, zeroing in on a single best practices approach, if anything, could make disinformation worse by helping those with bad intent figure out how to best game the system. The bad actors can adapt, while this approach could tie the hands of those trying to fight back.

Indeed, that alone is the very brilliance of Section 230's own structure. It recognizes that the combination of market forces (users and advertisers getting upset about garbage on the websites) and the ability to experiment with a wide variety of approaches, is how best to fight back against the garbage. By letting each website figure out what works best for their own community.
As I started writing this piece, Sundar Pichai's testimony for tomorrow was also released. And it makes this key point about how 230, as is, is how to best deal with misinformation and extremism online...


[excerpts from Sundar Pinchai's testimony]

Our ability to provide access to a wide range of information and viewpoints, while also being able to remove harmful content like misinformation, is made possible because of legal frameworks like Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 is foundational to the open web: it allows platforms and websites, big and small, across the entire internet, to responsibly manage content to keep users safe and promote access to information and free expression. Without Section 230, platforms would either over-filter content or not be able to filter content at all. In the fight against misinformation, Section 230 allows companies to take decisive action on harmful misinformation and keep up with bad actors who work hard to circumvent their policies.

Thanks to Section 230, consumers and businesses of all kinds benefit from unprecedented access to information and a vibrant digital economy. Today, more people have the opportunity to create content, start a business online, and have a voice than ever before. At the same time, it is clear that there is so much more work to be done to address harmful content and behavior, both online and offline.

Regulation has an important role to play in ensuring that we protect what is great about the open web, while addressing harm and improving accountability. We are, however, concerned that many recent proposals to change Section 230—including calls to repeal it altogether—would not serve that objective well. In fact, they would have unintended consequences—harming both free expression and the ability of platforms to take responsible action to protect users in the face of constantly evolving challenges.

We might better achieve our shared objectives by focusing on ensuring transparent, fair, and effective processes for addressing harmful content and behavior. Solutions might include developing content policies that are clear and accessible, notifying people when their content is removed and giving them ways to appeal content decisions, and sharing how systems designed for addressing harmful content are working over time. With this in mind, we are committed not only to doing our part on our services, but also to improving transparency across our industry.


That's standing up for the law that helped enable the open internet, not tossing it under the bus because it's politically convenient. It won't make politicians happy. But it's the right thing to say -- because it's true.


https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210324/10392546486/beware-facebook-ceos-bearing-section-230-reform-proposals.shtml

I shouldn't post this. It's too negative. But I'm FED UP.

Thanks, niyad!

FED UP with the Republican corporate dark money swamp dragging women down in 44 states.

Where is the ERA now that we need it most?

None of the male promoted Iron Age religious beliefs or male invented legalese can cover up male driven religious, legal and corporate assaults on women right now in the 21st Century USA -- Uncivilized Swamp of Amerikkka.

As Republican men revive feudalism and demonize women leaders as witches, the only male allies of women that exist are in the Democratic Party.
However imperfect they are in policy and practice, Democratic male allies, on their worst day -- Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton, Franken, Biden, and yes, Cuomo -- are better for women than any Republican on their best day.

No allies of women are seen in thousands of U.S. corporations.

Pro-life is for profit. Just as an exercise, mind you, consider that all over this country, in every state, millions of frozen "embryos" in fertility clinics lie frozen with their little "heartbeats." Does anyone hear any right winger pro-lifers fight to free them for a life with a mother? Are the 2% of them designated by their "owners" for research fought for in legislatures or courts? Does anyone interview the women they "harvested" them from? Does anyone hear one religious or political male leader say they have to "save" those "heartbeats" from research labs or clinic trash heaps? or from being used for pandemic vaccines?

No allies in Republicans.
Does anyone see one abortion bill supporter across 30 Republican-controlled legislatures write one bill to "help" pro-life problems for frozen embryos, or caged, already alive, innocent children with real heartbeats?

Does anyone hear in one word in statehouses of the constitutional or religious prior life rights (life, liberty, etc, etc.) and god-given free wills of women?

No.

American women know these hundreds of abortion bills are the swamp.
One by one, each bill exists to show women and their Democratic allies just who can and will eventually drown their "settled law" and equality before the law.
Their defenders have never been and never will be reasoned with.
At this minute they persist in seeking negative justice in the courts.

When male and female sexists take the religious stand between a woman and her god, they presume a spiritual and legal right to control women's god-given free wills, constitutional rights, bodily autonomy, hearts, minds and souls, based their own definitions of words like "pro-life," and "babies." Their virtue signal bullshit shaming of women really hides their own deep seated shame for their choice to deny "life, liberty..." through the courts of other men, heaven, institutions and the Constitution.

Women are used to being "beaten until morale improves." Literally, even.
Women -- especially their male allies -- should stop being inured to this -- not for their descendants who will have to sort out and clean up the uncivilized swamp of amerikka, and not to just "be on the right side of history.
Women and male allies must show the power that beats Might Makes Right rule.
No explanations, apologies or regrets.

What Democrats know:
We face hundreds of anti-abortion bills NOT because most men and women "don't understand."
We Democrats face the religious, legal, corporate world still driven by men who don't want anyone to understand their belief: that they themselves will not suffer MERE EQUALITY. They will not share power for the common good.

As the negative justice of bills that overly burden women or deny women access to abortion and custody drown our energy, as laws get passed by the hundreds against women, what else can women think of men and their institutions. It's not what those institutions say, it's what the sexists within them do to maintain the Uncivilized Swamp of Amerikka.

The economic/social swamp pulls women down by centuries of forced impoverishing slavery through the household economy. They tread the swamp of unequal pay for the same work, while staying impoverished by most of the actual costs of
-- immediate child care,
-- home hygiene,
-- personal injury care,
-- insurance,
-- loss of work time,
-- healing help through family counseling.
all further social darkness for them and/or their children.

Lower income and higher costs drag women down because of the unspoken, unrecognized, unpaid-for household economy -- the violent economic and social dark underbelly of capitalism and corporate profit.

Take Alabama, one of the 44 states that keep women treading.

These corporations DONATE to the Alabama politicians who ban the majority of their state from any abortions for any reason --

-- Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent, Atlanta, GA
-- AT&T CEO Randall L. Stephenson, Dallas, TX
-- Exxon Mobile CEO Darren Woods, Irving, TX
-- Pfizer Albert Bourla and Ian Read, New York, NY
-- Walmart Greg Penner and Doug McMillon,Bentonville, AR
-- Boeing Dennis Muilenburg - Chicago, IL
-- State Farm Michael Tipsord - Bloomington, IL
-- Eli Lilly David A. Ricks, Joshua Smiley, Indianapolis, IN
-- Caterpillar Jim Umpleby, Deerfield, IL

-- The rest:

Koch Industries, Witchita, KS -- run by the supposedly libertarian Koch brothers, donated $2,500 to Ainsworth, $1,500 to Chambliss, $1,500 to Ledbetter, and $2,000 to Reed.

Fantasy sports site Draft Kings -- Boston, MA -- donated $5,000 to McCutcheon, and $500 to Ainsworth.

Tobacco-maker Altria -- Henrico County, Virginia -- Howard Willard -- donated $1,000 to Chambliss, and $500 to Reed.

Cable provider Comcast -- Tupelo, MS -- Ralph J. Roberts -- donated $2,500 to McCutcheon.

Health insurance giant Caremark -- Birmingham, AL and Northbrook, IL -- donated $1,500 to McCutcheon.

Anheuser-Busch -- St. Louis, MO -- Michael Doukeris -- donated $1,000 to McCutcheon, and $1,500 to Reed.

DONATION UPDATE From Judd Legum, the corporate contributors to Governor Ivey herself (per tweet) :

Judd Legum
@JuddLegum

These corporations back @GovernorKayIvey, their enabler who signed the ban into law --

@BCBSAssociation (BlueCross) (75K)
@ATT (113K)
@LillyPad (30K)
@StateFarm (10K)
@Boeing (10K)
@Walmart (7K)
@CocaCola (10K)
@exxonmobil (5K)
@comcast (21K)
@pfizer (5K)

FED UP with the sexist, parasitic dark money infusion into the Uncivilized Swamp of Amerikkka used to keep its host down and docile.

I'm FED UP with the laughabe, deadly irony of the "undue burden" question.
Because here comes to the 2020-2021 SCOTUS in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Inc. with plaintiffs wanting to know how much they can get away with burdening women and women's allies over abortion access. And here comes Barrett and Kavanaugh to their rescue.

BTW, where's that state ratified ERA?
Docilely buried and forgotten in the swamp?
Can Democrats drag the ERA out to solve all of the above?
Can Rachel help?

I shouldn't post this. It's too negative. But I'm FED UP.

FED UP with the Republican corporate dark money swamp dragging women down in 44 states.

Where is the ERA now that we need it most?

None of the male promoted Iron Age religious beliefs or male invented legalese can cover up male driven religious, legal and corporate assaults on women right now in the 21st Century USA -- Uncivilized Swamp of Amerikkka.

As Republican men revive feudalism and demonize women leaders as witches, the only male allies of women that exist are in the Democratic Party.
However imperfect they are in policy and practice, Democratic male allies, on their worst day -- Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton, Franken, Biden, and yes, Cuomo -- are better for women than any Republican on their best day.

No allies of women are seen in thousands of U.S. corporations.

Pro-life is for profit. Just as an exercise, mind you, consider that all over this country, in every state, millions of frozen "embryos" in fertility clinics lie frozen with their little "heartbeats." Does anyone hear any right winger pro-lifers fight to free them for a life with a mother? Are the 2% of them designated by their "owners" for research fought for in legislatures or courts? Does anyone interview the women they "harvested" them from? Does anyone hear one religious or political male leader say they have to "save" those "heartbeats" from research labs or clinic trash heaps? or from being used for pandemic vaccines?

No allies in Republicans.
Does anyone see one abortion bill supporter across 30 Republican-controlled legislatures write one bill to "help" pro-life problems for frozen embryos, or caged, already alive, innocent children with real heartbeats?

Does anyone hear in one word in statehouses of the constitutional or religious prior life rights (life, liberty, etc, etc.) and god-given free wills of women?

No.

American women know these hundreds of abortion bills are the swamp.
One by one, each bill exists to show women and their Democratic allies just who can and will eventually drown their "settled law" and equality before the law.
Their defenders have never been and never will be reasoned with.
At this minute they persist in seeking negative justice in the courts.

When male and female sexists take the religious stand between a woman and her god, they presume a spiritual and legal right to control women's god-given free wills, constitutional rights, bodily autonomy, hearts, minds and souls, based their own definitions of words like "pro-life," and "babies." Their virtue signal bullshit shaming of women really hides their own deep seated shame for their choice to deny "life, liberty..." through the courts of other men, heaven, institutions and the Constitution.

Women are used to being "beaten until morale improves." Literally, even.
Women -- especially their male allies -- should stop being inured to this -- not for their descendants who will have to sort out and clean up the uncivilized swamp of amerikka, and not to just "be on the right side of history.
Women and male allies must show the power that beats Might Makes Right rule.
No explanations, apologies or regrets.

What Democrats know:
We face hundreds of anti-abortion bills NOT because most men and women "don't understand."
We Democrats face the religious, legal, corporate world still driven by men who don't want anyone to understand their belief: that they themselves will not suffer MERE EQUALITY. They will not share power for the common good.

As the negative justice of bills that overly burden women or deny women access to abortion and custody drown our energy, as laws get passed by the hundreds against women, what else can women think of men and their institutions. It's not what those institutions say, it's what the sexists within them do to maintain the Uncivilized Swamp of Amerikka.

The economic/social swamp pulls women down by centuries of forced impoverishing slavery through the household economy. They tread the swamp of unequal pay for the same work, while staying impoverished by most of the actual costs of
-- immediate child care,
-- home hygiene,
-- personal injury care,
-- insurance,
-- loss of work time,
-- healing help through family counseling.
all further social darkness for them and/or their children.

Lower income and higher costs drag women down because of the unspoken, unrecognized, unpaid-for household economy -- the violent economic and social dark underbelly of capitalism and corporate profit.

Take Alabama, one of the 44 states that keep women treading.

These corporations DONATE to the Alabama politicians who ban the majority of their state from any abortions for any reason --

-- Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent, Atlanta, GA
-- AT&T CEO Randall L. Stephenson, Dallas, TX
-- Exxon Mobile CEO Darren Woods, Irving, TX
-- Pfizer Albert Bourla and Ian Read, New York, NY
-- Walmart Greg Penner and Doug McMillon,Bentonville, AR
-- Boeing Dennis Muilenburg - Chicago, IL
-- State Farm Michael Tipsord - Bloomington, IL
-- Eli Lilly David A. Ricks, Joshua Smiley, Indianapolis, IN
-- Caterpillar Jim Umpleby, Deerfield, IL

-- The rest:

Koch Industries, Witchita, KS -- run by the supposedly libertarian Koch brothers, donated $2,500 to Ainsworth, $1,500 to Chambliss, $1,500 to Ledbetter, and $2,000 to Reed.

Fantasy sports site Draft Kings -- Boston, MA -- donated $5,000 to McCutcheon, and $500 to Ainsworth.

Tobacco-maker Altria -- Henrico County, Virginia -- Howard Willard -- donated $1,000 to Chambliss, and $500 to Reed.

Cable provider Comcast -- Tupelo, MS -- Ralph J. Roberts -- donated $2,500 to McCutcheon.

Health insurance giant Caremark -- Birmingham, AL and Northbrook, IL -- donated $1,500 to McCutcheon.

Anheuser-Busch -- St. Louis, MO -- Michael Doukeris -- donated $1,000 to McCutcheon, and $1,500 to Reed.

DONATION UPDATE From Judd Legum, the corporate contributors to Governor Ivey herself (per tweet) :

Judd Legum
@JuddLegum

These corporations back @GovernorKayIvey, their enabler who signed the ban into law --

@BCBSAssociation (BlueCross) (75K)
@ATT (113K)
@LillyPad (30K)
@StateFarm (10K)
@Boeing (10K)
@Walmart (7K)
@CocaCola (10K)
@exxonmobil (5K)
@comcast (21K)
@pfizer (5K)

FED UP with the sexist, parasitic dark money infusion into the Uncivilized Swamp of Amerikkka used to keep its host down and docile.

I'm FED UP with the laughabe, deadly irony of the "undue burden" question.
Because here comes the 2020-2021 SCOTUS to hear the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Inc., with its plaintiffs wanting to know how much they can get away with burdening women and women's allies over abortion access. And here comes Barrett and Kavanaugh to their rescue.

BTW, where's that state ratified ERA?
Docilely buried and forgotten in the swamp?
Can Democrats drag the ERA out to solve all of the above?
Can Rachel help?

Rachel Maddow On The Tools of Power for Advancement and Regression

Cuomo & Puerto Rican Leaders Speak At Opening of Memorial at New Settlement Community Center

In The Bronx

" Nosotros somos más que amigos.
Somos hermanos y hermanas.
Somos familia.
Somos uno. Somos uno. Somos uno."

Unidad de comunidad.

Al gobernador de Nueva York: muchas gracias por todo.


Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »