• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Store
  • Videos
  • Breaking News
  • Articles
  • Contact

ET Williams

The Doctor of Common Sense

Blog

03/18/2017 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Tom Ford back in the U.S.?

Tom Ford

The big, flat box of Dunkin’ Donuts, assorted varieties, sits open, one column short of the dozen, the only non-minimalist appointment in sight. It graces a sleek table in the upstairs seating loft at Studio 2 at Spring Studios. Tom Ford swears that the box isn’t a regular-guy prop, that he has in fact feasted on the missing sugary quartet this morning. “Four doughnuts and three cups of coffee.” When I express skepticism, he insists it’s his typical morning intake. “What?” he fakes reciprocal dismay. “I only eat fish and vegetables the rest of the time.”

The balance works. Dressed in an impeccable lean-cut suit with shirt and tie, Ford looks as svelte as ever and classically debonair, having left the open-to-there shirts of his slightly younger self behind. Yet I wasn’t invited to talk doughnuts or Ford’s eternal good looks. The primary topic: his decision to “abandon” (his word) the see-now-buy-now approach to showing that only last season some progressive industry thinkers considered at the vanguard of best practices. Ford tried it, staging a tony, civilized affair at the former Four Seasons restaurant in New York. The show proved a crowd-pleaser and the clothes, impressive, garnered him an explosion of press and a major postshow selling spurt. But ultimately, the construct didn’t work, so he’s moving on.

That was just the start of his news. Beginning with spring 2018, Ford will show his women’s wear on the traditional schedule, but in New York rather than in his recent base, London, while continuing to present men’s in Milan, “and not mixing them, at least not regularly.” He’ll likely seek an early slot on the New York Fashion Week calendar. “I like going first,” Ford says. “People are in a good mood. You have to think of the psychology. People have had their summer, they’re not worn out yet from fashion.”

Ford is not only exiting fashion week in London. He and his family, husband Richard Buckley and son Jack, are moving from there to Los Angeles, where they’ve recently bought a heck of a house. It once belonged to Betsy and Alfred Bloomingdale, and had a reported, though most definitely unconfirmed, purchase price, of $39 million. (By the way, Ford offers that Jack is “adorable and freakishly smart.” A photo bears out the former condition; as for the latter, we’ll have to take the proud dad’s word.) And Ford has signed a lease on a studio space in L.A. — the old Regen Projects gallery (yes, Hedi Slimane’s former studio) — where he will relocate most of his women’s design staff, while keeping the men’s studio in London. Phew!

Ford came to New York for a day of press appointments on Thursday. Fall 2017 “is sold and done. But I wanted to bring it to New York and show New York editors,” he says. The trip was arranged hastily, as for a while, he was uncertain how or even whether to show fall after his decision to forego the runway this time out.

The reason: His preoccupation with thinking through his retreat from see-now-buy-now, and what other alternatives might exist. Since reentering the women’s arena, Ford has been in the forefront of experimentation with methods of showing, garnering high praise and vivisection for various efforts. He works from an almost scientific resolve, experimental in the true sense of the word: He goes all-in to test a promising hypothesis with a conviction rare in fashion.

“I don’t have fear,” Ford says. “You have to do what feels right, you have to try things. I don’t let fear stop me. It doesn’t mean I don’t second-guess myself constantly, right up until the end — ‘Oh my God, is this right, is that right? Should that be that? Should I have kept this off? God, should I make those skirts out of Lycra?’…And blah blah blah. But you can’t let that stop you.”

When efforts haven’t worked, he’s admitted it. Now, he muses, only half-joking, that all the luxury types who pooh-poohed the buy-now concept — which were just about all the luxury types but for Ralph Lauren and Burberry’s Christopher Bailey — will garner some satisfaction from being proven right, for the moment.

Yet he still believes that immediacy is the ultimate way of the future. “Doesn’t everyone want everything now?” he queries, rhetorically. However, in the present, see-now-buy-now can’t work for a very simple reason: The industry’s numerous schedules aren’t in sync.

Ford notes he had no production issues — “we shipped in July” — and that during the three weeks immediately postshow, business boomed at retail. Overall, however, “The store shipping schedule doesn’t align with the fashion show schedule.” The bulk of fall ships in August, “but you can’t have a show with clothes that have been on the selling floor for a month.” Ford kept his off the floor until the day after the show, insisting that his retail partners did the same. “We lost a month of selling. We had merchandise sitting in stockrooms all over the world.” Many of those retailers, though at first excited by the prospect of see-now-buy-now, grew frustrated that the clothes had to be kept under wraps until September.

Ultimately, the focused frenzy didn’t make up for the loss of traditional long-lead press and the additional selling time. Spring would create a different issue, given its shorter lead time. “Our clothes are just now fully in the stores, and we have missed all the fashion weeks,” Ford notes.

Thus, his return to the traditional schedule. And his permanent (at least for now) runway migration to New York. After the success of his second directorial film effort, “Nocturnal Animals,” Ford wants to spend the next few years focusing solely on fashion. He is definitely in growth mode, particularly with women’s. Men’s accounts for about 60 percent of his business and women’s, 40, a ratio he’d like to reverse. But he admits to a stronger comfort level in the men’s arena. “I’m my own muse. On a good day, I can look 45. I’m a sample size 48, and if I want it for myself, I make it.” A recent addition, underwear, in store for fourth quarter, is men’s only for now. “I thought it was time my name was wrapped around the hips of 25-year-old men, boys. I’ve been waiting to say that,” he offers, in his typical deadpan delivery.

He thinks that having a regular presence on the traditional women’s schedule will support a structure that will benefit that side of the business. “I need a home for fashion shows and a consistency, so that you can start to think, ‘OK, this is where he shows, this is what it’s about, this is what he did last season, this is what he’s doing now. There’s a certain consistency,” he says. “Paris is crammed full of competition; Milan, been there, done that.… London, I’ve tried and tried and tried, and honestly London Fashion Week is not the same. It doesn’t attract the international press. So I needed to pick one. And the shows I’ve had in New York have worked very well.”

The residential move, from London to Los Angeles, is more nuanced. Having spent the better part of a year in Los Angeles because of the film, he was reminded of the appeal of sunshine after 18 years in “dark London.” That move is a homecoming of sorts, a concept that appeals to Ford now more than ever, as a family man who’s admittedly no spring chicken himself. “I grew up in the American West. The older I get, the more pulled back I am to a more rural…” perhaps conjuring images of his soon-to-be-residence, he rethinks “rural” “…I need sunshine. L.A. is the least city of all cities.” His parents live on the West Coast, as does his sister and her children. “Jack has a family there. A lot of it is personal.”

The presidential election also impacted Ford’s decision to move, surprisingly so. Unlike those celebrities who vowed in its lead-up to leave the country if Donald Trump won, Ford found an opposite pull. “Oddly, it made me want to come back even more,” he notes. “We have a tremendous number of people in this country who feel disenfranchised and clearly we are not relating to or speaking to them. I am at my core American, and it made me want to come back. It didn’t make me want to run away.

“I think when you sense that there is a divide in your country and that there are people who perhaps you’re not relating to, and that those of us who are fortunate enough to live in a world of very liberal human rights and privilege, it’s a wake-up call that we’re not addressing a big part of the country that does feel disenfranchised. It made me feel more nationalistic, if anything. The whole country is not like New York and L.A. and the world that I am used to living in.”

Bridget Foley’s Diary: Tom Ford, Coming Home

Filed Under: Donald Trump, Hollywood, President Trump, Refugees Tagged With: Tom Ford, U.S.

03/18/2017 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Deportation Proceedings in 12 U.S. Cities

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin (R) arrives at the U.S. District Court Ninth Circuit to present his arguments after filing an amended lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s new travel ban in Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S. on March 15, 2017

By Julia Edwards Ainsley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department is developing plans to temporarily reassign immigration judges from around the country to 12 cities to speed up deportations of illegal immigrants who have been charged with crimes, according to two administration officials.

How many judges will be reassigned and when they will be sent is still under review, according to the officials, but the Justice Department has begun soliciting volunteers for deployment.

The targeted cities are New York; Los Angeles; Miami; New Orleans; San Francisco; Baltimore, Bloomington, Minnesota; El Paso, Texas; Harlingen, Texas; Imperial, California; Omaha, Nebraska and Phoenix, Arizona. They were chosen because they are cities which have high populations of illegal immigrants with criminal charges, the officials said.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review, which administers immigration courts, confirmed that the cities have been identified as likely recipients of reassigned immigration judges, but did not elaborate on the planning.

The plan to intensify deportations is in line with a vow made frequently by President Donald Trump on the campaign trail last year to deport more illegal immigrants involved in crime.

The Department of Homeland Security asked for the judges’ reshuffle, an unusual move given that immigration courts are administered by the Department of Justice. A Homeland Security spokeswoman declined to comment on any plan that has not yet been finalized.

Under an executive order signed by Trump in January, illegal immigrants with pending criminal cases are regarded as priorities for deportation whether they have been found guilty or not.

That is a departure from former President Barack Obama’s policy, which prioritized deportations only of those convicted of serious crimes.

The policy shift has been criticized by advocate groups who say it unfairly targets immigrants who might ultimately be acquitted and do not pose a threat.

The cities slated to receive more judges have more than half of the 18,013 pending immigration cases that involve undocumented immigrants facing or convicted of criminal charges, according to data provided by the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review.

More than 200 of those cases involve immigrants currently incarcerated, meaning that the others have either not been convicted or have served their sentence. The Justice Department did not provide a breakdown of how many of the remainder have been convicted and how many are awaiting trial.

As part of the Trump administration crackdown on illegal immigrants, the Justice Department is also sending immigration judges to detention centers along the southwest border. Those temporary redeployments will begin Monday.

‘AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING’

Former immigration judge and chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Schmidt said the Trump administration should not assume that all those charged with crimes would not be allowed to stay in the United States legally.

“It seems they have an assumption that everyone who has committed a crime should be removable, but that’s not necessarily true. Even people who have committed serious crimes can sometimes get asylum,” Schmidt said.

He also questioned the effectiveness of shuffling immigration judges from one court to another, noting that this will mean cases the judges would have handled in their usual courts will have to be rescheduled. He said that when he was temporarily reassigned to handle cases on the southern border in 2014 and 2015, cases he was slated to hear in his home court in Arlington, Virginia had to be postponed, often for more than a year.

“That’s what you call aimless docket reshuffling,” he said.

Under the Obama administration, to avoid the expense and disruption of immigration judges traveling, they would often hear proceedings from other courthouses via video conference.

The judges’ reshuffling could further logjam a national immigration court system which has more than 540,000 pending cases.

The cities slated to receive more judges have different kinds of immigrant populations.

Imperial, California, for example, is in one of the nation’s largest agriculture hubs, attracting large numbers of immigrant farmworkers from Mexico and Central America.

Bloomington, Minnesota, near St. Paul, is home to a large number of African immigrants, many of whom traveled from war-torn countries like Somalia to claim asylum in the United States.

(Reporting by Julia Edwards Ainsley; Editing by Sue Horton and Alistair Bell)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-immigration-judges-headed-12-u-cities-speed-215551535.html

Filed Under: Donald Trump, Illegal Immigration, Politics Tagged With: Deportation, Immigration

03/18/2017 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Military Nudity Investigation Expands

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., joined at left by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., questions Marine Gen. Robert B. Neller, the commandant of the Marine Corps, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on March, 14, 2017. (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

WASHINGTON — The military scandal involving sharing of sexually explicit images of troops has expanded beyond the private social media site Marines United to a slew of gay pornography web pages with images of men wearing military uniforms engaged in sex acts, USA TODAY has learned.

The broadened investigation to an increasing number of websites underscores the complexity of policing social media sites where sensitive images can be uploaded in an instant for all to see. In the case of the sites with gay pornography, military investigators will be tasked with determining whether active-duty troops were involved in conduct that could bring discredit on their service, a potential violation of military law.

The Marine Corps is not the only service affected. Images of men in the uniforms of sailors, soldiers and airmen also appear on an array of Tumblr sites. Similar to the Marines United case, it is unclear whether men appearing in the images — some photographed engaging in sex — provided consent to have their images shared publicly. Victims of so-called revenge porn in the Marines United case have limited protection under military law if the photographs or videos were taken originally with their consent.

The Pentagon has established a joint military task force to handle the growing investigation, said MaryAnn Cummings, a spokeswoman for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

Navy, Marine, Army, Air Force and Coast Guard investigators have “established a multi-service task force to expand the investigation,” she said.

Read more:

Senators rip top Marine over online nude photo sharing

Marines nude photo scandal involves all branches of military:  Lawmakers condemn explicit photos of female Marines posted on social media

Military officials briefed Congress on Thursday about the Marines United scandal, in which hundreds of active-duty Marines have viewed photos of servicewomen taken without their consent and cyber bullied some of them.

On some of the gay Tumblr sites, fully dressed troops appear in photos with their name tags visible. At least one such Marine did not agree for his photo to be republished amid a sea of images of men having sex, according Lt. Col. Eric Dent, a Marine Corps spokesman.

Air Force investigators also are now combing through a number of websites to look for victims, said Col. Pat Ryder, an Air Force spokesman.

“The Air Force Office of Special Investigations is investigating information and photographs from web sites hosting inappropriate photos of service members without prior consent,” Ryder said. “As part of that ongoing criminal investigation, airmen identified will be contacted directly by AFOSI to determine whether they are victims.”

Determining whether the men in the photos, many involved in group sex, are active-duty troops is possible, said a congressional source on a military oversight committee who was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue. NCIS has dedicated dozens of investigators to the matter, the source said. They can comb through the photos and identify troops with the use of facial-recognition software.

The revelation of the expanded investigation drew swift response from Capitol Hill. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat and member of the Armed Services Committee, called on Congress to intervene. Earlier this week, she blasted Marine and Navy officials for failing to hold commanders accountable for the problem.

“This scandal is out of control and the Department of Defense needs to get a handle on it immediately,” Gillibrand told USA TODAY in a statement. “Congress needs to demand accountability from the chain of command as to how so many service members, both women and men now, could be so easily exploited. Commanders have told us for decades that they can handle these issues, clearly they cannot, and Congress should step up and do its job and bring professionalism and accountability to the military justice system that has ignored predators for far too long.”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., joined at left by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., questions Marine Gen. Robert B. Neller, the commandant of the Marine Corps, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on March, 14, 2017. (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat also on the committee, said the violation of fellow troops’ privacy strikes at the heart of military values.

“The Department of Defense has to get to the bottom of this,” McCaskill said. “Our military leaders have a responsibility to prevent and address every kind of degrading behavior and harassment, regardless of whether it happens in the barracks or on the internet.”

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller told the Senate this week that Marines need “to commit to get rid of this perversion to our culture.”

Punishment, including court martial, is possible if active duty troops can be identified on the pornographic websites, said Don Christensen, president of Protect Our Defenders, an advocacy organization for victims of sexual abuse in the military.

Precedent exists for booting troops from the ranks for posing nude in men’s magazines, said Christensen, who was also the top prosecutor for the Air Force. Court martial would be possible for troops who posted images of themselves in uniform exposing themselves or having sex.

“That wouldn’t fit the image the military wants to project, especially sexual activity in uniform,” Christensen said.

There is a defense for free speech and freedom of expression, he said. But the military has wide latitude in disciplining or dismissing troops for conduct that affects good order and discipline. Photos such as these, he said, certainly fill that bill.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/17/marine-corps-commandant-robert-neller-marines-united-pornography/99306778/

Filed Under: Federal Government, News, Politics Tagged With: Military, misconduct, nudity

03/17/2017 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Isis Hacker who is Responsible for the “Kill List” was Shot down by Drone Strike

The leader of a notorious ISIS hacking group responsible for distributing so-called ‘kill lists,’ has reportedly been killed in a U.S. drone strike.

Osed Agha, head of United Cyber Caliphate (UCC) hacking group was allegedly targeted by a U.S. drone strike on the Islamic State’s de-facto capital Raqqa, according to encrypted Telegram messages observed by The Foreign Desk.

Though jihadis initially remained skeptical at the news of Agha’s death, the group’s Telegram channel posted a video Thursday acknowledging “Our leader Osed Agha has been killed by a U.S. airstrike.”

The White House has not yet confirmed the strike.

The UCC group routinely posts ‘kill lists,’ containing names and addresses of Americans, ranging from ordinary citizens to police officers and State Department employees. Experts contend that much of the data is obtained from publicly available databases, though officials disagree whether these lists pose a serious threat or are intended to instill fear and panic among Americans.

 In recent months, the group touted achievements including the hacking of hundreds of social media accounts as well as carrying out several DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks, targeting numerous websites and taking them offline.

The group previously posted vivid images expressing their desire to carry out attacks on the West, including a poster featuring U.S. President Donald Trump saying, “Will bring the war of America and raise the flag of tawheed (oneness) on the your lands by Allah’s will”

In a video message, the group now urges followers to continue Agha’s work, displaying a U.S. flag followed by an explosion and the word “soon,” likely a veiled call for jihadis to target the U.S. in revenge.

The UCC posted a message eulogizing Agha as a ‘Martyr’ and someone who “would leap with a sword in his hands to cut-off the heads of the kufar. He would attack the apostate’s Web Sites reaping their data and ruining their plans.”

“You are either with us or against us”

Recently, the UCC published a video urging Muslims hackers in the West to join its ranks and fight a war against the kufar (non-believers) and also posted a video aiming a direct threat against a leading online counter extremism organization

Background

Several jihadi hacking groups pledged allegiance to the Islamic State in 2014, the most famous of them “Cyber Caliphate,” whose team included Junaid Hussain, a British-Pakistani hacker who fled the U.K. to Syria in 2013.

Hussain, a high profile recruiter for ISIS who hacked CENTCOM’s Twitter and YouTube accounts, was considered the second ranked British jihadi behind Mohammed Emwazi (Jihadi John). Hussain was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Syria in August 2015.

In April 2016, four hacking groups consolidated as one under the name United Cyber Caliphate (UCC).

Agha routinely posted videos threatening to target websites of Western countries and U.S. coalition partners and urged Muslims in Western countries to “use skills that Allah has allowed them to gain in order to defend Islam and the oppressed Muslims by targeting the enemy’s websites and cyber-systems.”

Little personal information is known about Agha, though he may have been of Indonesian origin, according to some social media posts.

ISIS hacker who published ‘kill lists’ reportedly killed in U.S. drone strike

Filed Under: ISIS, Murder, Politics Tagged With: Drones, ISIS, Terrorism

03/17/2017 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

New York Assemblyman Unveils Bill To Suppress Non-Government-Approved Free Speech

David Weprin

In a bill aimed at securing a “right to be forgotten,” introduced by Assemblyman David I. Weprin and (as Senate Bill 4561 by state Sen. Tony Avella), liberal New York politicians would require people to remove ‘inaccurate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive’ statements about others…

  • Within 30 days of a ”request from an individual,”
  • “all search engines and online speakers] shall remove … content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is ‘inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive,’ ”
  • “and without replacing such removed … content with any disclaimer [or] takedown notice.”
  • “ ‘[I]naccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘excessive’ shall mean content,”
  • “which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication,”
  • “is no longer material to current public debate or discourse,”
  • “especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information … is causing to the requester’s professional, financial, reputational or other interest,”
  • “with the exception of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is of significant current public interest, and as to which the requester’s role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.”

Failure to comply would make the search engines or speakers liable for, at least, statutory damages of $250/day plus attorney fees.

As The Washington Post’s Eugene Volokh rages, under this bill, newspapers, scholarly works, copies of books on Google Books and Amazon, online encyclopedias (Wikipedia and others) — all would have to be censored whenever a judge and jury found (or the author expected them to find) that the speech was “no longer material to current public debate or discourse” (except when it was “related to convicted felonies” or “legal matters relating to violence” in which the subject played a “central and substantial” role).

And of course the bill contains no exception even for material of genuine historical interest; after all, such speech would have to be removed if it was “no longer material to current public debate.” Nor is there an exception for autobiographic material, whether in a book, on a blog or anywhere else. Nor is there an exception for political figures, prominent businesspeople and others.

But the deeper problem with the bill is simply that it aims to censor what people say, under a broad, vague test based on what the government thinks the public should or shouldn’t be discussing. It is clearly unconstitutional under current First Amendment law, and I hope First Amendment law will stay that way (no matter what rules other countries might have adopted).

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-16/new-york-assemblyman-unveils-bill-suppress-non-government-approved-free-speech

Filed Under: Freedom, Politics Tagged With: Bill, free speech, New York

03/17/2017 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

White House backs down from Claim that Britain Assisted Obama in Wiretapping

The White House has assured Number 10 it will not repeat claims that GCHQ spied on Donald Trump, Theresa May’s spokesman has said.

He said allegations that British spies had helped Barack Obama eavesdrop on Mr Trump during the presidential campaign – cited by the White House press secretary – were “ridiculous”.

“We’ve made clear to the administration that these claims are ridiculous and they should be ignored and we’ve received assurances that these allegations will not be repeated,” the spokesman told reporters.

“We have a close special relationship with the White House and that allows us to raise concerns as and when they arise as was true in this case.”

The spokesman added that it would be impossible for GCHQ to spy on Mr Trump as both countries are members of the Five Eyes alliance – a joint intelligence co-operation agreement which also includes Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

“I would add, just as a matter of fact, with the Five Eyes pact, we cannot use each other’s capabilities to circumvent laws,” he said.

“It’s a situation that simply wouldn’t arise.”

Previously, GCHQ had also dismissed the claim as “utterly ridiculous”.

The original accusation was made by US media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano, and was then repeated by White House press secretary Sean Spicer.

Mr Spicer spoke out after the US Congress rejected Mr Trump’s claim that the Obama administration “tapped his wires” before the election.

He said the President “stands by” his claim, but no evidence has yet been produced to back it up.

Mr Spicer identified a report on Fox News as the source of the allegation, saying that three intelligence sources had informed the broadcaster that Mr Obama went outside the chain of command.

“He didn’t use the NSA, he didn’t use the CIA, he didn’t use the FBI and he didn’t use the Department of Justice, he used GCHQ,” said Mr Spicer.

The British intelligence organisation took the unusual step of responding by saying: “Recent allegations made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct ‘wiretapping’ against the then president-elect are nonsense.

“They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored.”

http://news.sky.com/story/white-house-backs-down-from-claim-gchq-spied-on-trump-10804677

Filed Under: Donald Trump, Politics, President Trump, Wiretapping Tagged With: Great Britain, Obama, wiretap

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 245
  • Go to page 246
  • Go to page 247
  • Go to page 248
  • Go to page 249
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 336
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Articles

  • It Is Supposed To Be America First Stop Foreigners From Holding Office
  • What Really Happened To Seth Rich And Is It Connected To Hillary Emails And Fake Russian Collusion?
  • Will “Big Tish” Leticia James Go To Prison For Mortgage Fraud?
  • Women Hit With A Bowling Ball

Donate To Free Speech

Footer


Copyright © 2025 · Workstation Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in