52.3 F
San Francisco
Monday, May 11, 2026
Home Blog Page 972

Trump Plan to Declare Migrants Dead Sparks Outrage

Brent Edward
-
0
Trump Plan to Declare Migrants Dead Sparks Outrage

Key Takeaways:

  • Trump administration plans to declare certain migrants legally dead.
  • This would block their access to financial services and government benefits.
  • The policy targets migrants with criminal records or suspected terrorists.
  • It may expand to include more unauthorized immigrants.
  • Part of broader efforts to restrict noncitizen rights.

A New immigration Policy with a Shocking Approach

The Trump administration is considering a controversial new policy that could designate certain migrants as legally dead, a move that has sparked significant concern. By adding these individuals to the Death Master File, typically used for deceased persons, the government aims to limit their access to essential services, effectively forcing them to leave the country.

How the Plan Works

Migrants targeted by this policy would have their Social Security numbers marked as those of deceased individuals. This action would prevent them from opening bank accounts, obtaining loans, or accessing government benefits. The immediate impact could be devastating, affecting not only the migrants but also their families who depend on these services.

Who Is Affected?

Currently, the policy targets migrants with criminal records or those suspected of terrorism. However, there are concerns that this could extend to a broader group of unauthorized immigrants, raising alarms about widespread consequences.

The Broader Context

This policy is part of a larger initiative by the Trump administration to limit the rights of noncitizens. Other measures include mass deportations without due process and attempts to redefine birthright citizenship, which is currently facing legal challenges.

Implications and Concerns

The potential expansion of this policy raises serious questions about fairness and justice. Declaring individuals dead without due process could lead to extreme hardship, affecting their ability to work, access healthcare, and maintain stability for their families. Legal experts and advocates are likely to challenge this policy, arguing it violates fundamental rights.

Conclusion

While the policy’s exact reach and implications are still unfolding, it highlights the administration’s aggressive stance on immigration. As debates and legal challenges ensue, the focus remains on the human impact and the importance of upholding due process and justice for all individuals.

Trump Threatens Mexico Over Water Debt to Texas

Brent Edward
-
0
Trump Threatens Mexico Over Water Debt to Texas

 

Key Takeaways:

  • Mexico owes Texas 1.3 million acre-feet of water under a 1944 treaty.
  • Mexico has delivered less than 30% of the required amount.
  • Texas farmers face hardship due to drought and water shortages.
  • Trump threatens tariffs and sanctions over the issue.
  • Trump criticizes Biden for inaction on the matter.

Understanding the Water Debt

A water treaty from 1944 requires Mexico to supply Texas with 1.8 million acre-feet of water every five years. This treaty is crucial for farmers and communities in southern Texas, especially during droughts. However, Mexico is significantly behind in meeting its obligations, having delivered less than 30% of the required amount as of last year.

The Treaty and Its Importance

The 1944 U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty ensures water distribution from the Rio Grande’s tributaries. This agreement is vital for agriculture in Texas, supporting crops like cotton and citrus fruits. The deficit has worsened water shortages, affecting farmers already struggling with drought.

Impact on Texas Farmers

Southern Texas farmers are facing severe drought conditions, exacerbating the water shortage. The lack of water has led to crop losses and economic hardship. A local sugar mill closed last year, highlighting the crisis’s severity.

Trump’s Response and Threats

President Trump has criticized Mexico for violating the treaty and not providing the owed water. He accused Mexico of stealing water from Texas farmers and blamed Biden for not addressing the issue. Trump vows to take action, including tariffs and sanctions, to ensure compliance.

Implications of the Dispute

The water dispute could strain U.S.-Mexico relations. Trump’s tariffs and sanctions might impact trade, affecting both economies. This situation highlights the need for cooperative solutions to water scarcity, especially in drought-prone regions.

Conclusion

The water debt issue remains unresolved, with significant implications for Texas farmers and U.S.-Mexico relations. Trump’s approach may lead to economic consequences, emphasizing the urgency for a diplomatic resolution to this critical matter.

Space Force Removes Greenland Commander Over Loyalty Issues

Brent Edward
-
0
Space Force Removes Greenland Commander Over Loyalty Issues

Key Takeaways:

  • U.S. Space Force removes commander in Greenland over disloyalty concerns.
  • Colonel Susannah Meyers lost her position after Vice President JD Vance’s visit.
  • She sent an email distancing herself from Vance’s criticisms of Denmark.
  • Denmark’s foreign minister rebuked Vance’s comments on defense spending.
  • The removal highlights the demand for nonpartisanship in military leadership.

Introduction: In a significant move, the U.S. Space Force has removed Colonel Susannah Meyers from her command at Space Base Delta 1 in Greenland. The decision, citing disloyalty, came two weeks after Vice President JD Vance’s visit. Meyers’ dismissal underscores the importance of nonpartisanship in military roles.

The Visit and Its Aftermath: Vice President JD Vance visited the remote base on March 28, where he criticized Denmark for not meeting defense spending expectations. This remarks drew immediate backlash from Danish officials, including Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who expressed that allies should communicate respectfully.

Meyers’ Response: Following Vance’s visit, Colonel Meyers addressed her team via email, clarifying that the Vice President’s views did not reflect those of the base or its personnel. Her action, while intended to maintain relationships, was seen as disloyal by Space Force leadership.

Implications and Reactions: The Space Force emphasized that commanders must uphold nonpartisanship, crucial for maintaining trust and cohesion. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell supported this stance, noting that any subversion of the chain of command or presidential agenda is unacceptable.

A New Leader Steps In: Colonel Shawn Lee succeeds Colonel Meyers, marking a swift transition aimed at maintaining stability and leadership at the base.

Conclusion: This incident highlights the delicate balance military leaders must strike, adhering to nonpartisanship while navigating political landscapes. The removal of Colonel Meyers serves as a reminder of the high standards expected in leadership roles within the U.S. military.

Racism Fuels Trump’s Rise, Dividing America

Brent Edward
-
0
Racism Fuels Trump’s Rise, Dividing America

Key Takeaways:

  • Trump’s rise to power is deeply rooted in exploiting racial tensions.
  • His supporters remain loyal despite personal financial losses.
  • Racism central to his strategy threatens democracy and equality.
  • Historical context shows howracism manipulates voters, distracting from economic struggles.

How Did We Get Here?

The question looms large: How did America reach this point? The answer lies in racism, a tactic Trump has masterfully exploited. His presidency, marked by controversy and division, has left many bewildered. Yet, his support endures, even as policies harm many supporters. This loyalty stems from a manipulated sense of superiority, distracting from economic woes.

Racism isn’t just a tool for Trump; it’s his foundation. He rose by questioning Obama’s citizenship, sowing division and Normalizing bigotry. This strategy united supporters, who prioritize racial hierarchy over economic loss.

Trump’s Playbook: Exploiting Racism

Trump’s success hinges on stoking racial unrest. His rhetoric targets marginalized groups, creating Enemies to unite supporters. By attacking Diversity and Inclusion initiatives, he appeals to those who fear losing status. This playbook worked, bringing disparate groups together under a shared grievance.

His appeal isn’t about policies but identity. Supporters often overlook personal losses, prioritizing a return to a past where hierarchy was clear. For them, cultural identity outweighs economic pain.

The Cost of Support

Supporters bear the brunt of Trump’s policies through financial hardship. Farmers, workers, and retirees see savings dwindle, yet remain loyal. This loyalty is rooted in a desire to maintain racial order, even at personal cost.

Trump’s actions target civil rights, reversing decades of progress. By erasing Black history and attacking equality efforts, he reinforces racial divisions, ensuring continued support.

History Repeats

Lyndon Johnson foresaw this in 1964, noting the loss of the South to racism. His words ring true today; convincing whites of superiority ensures they ignore exploitation. This tactic worked in 2016 and continues to sway voters.

Trump’s rise mirrors this strategy, leveraging racism to gain power. His focus on identity politics distracts from issues like economy and healthcare, maintaining support through Us vs. Them narratives.

A Threat to Democracy

Racism not only divides but threatens democracy. Trump’s attacks on courts and voting rights undermine fairness. His supporters’ loyalty, despite evidence of corruption, shows how deeply ingrained racial loyalty is.

The erosion of civil rights and democratic norms endangers the nation’s future. Without addressing racial divisions, democracy faces peril.

The Republican Party’s Role

Republicans thrive on identity politics, exploiting race for votes. Their focus on wedge issues, like immigration and crime, maintains support. While Democrats avoid the term, it’s what drives their opponents.

This reliance on race ensures political power, even as the party undermines democracy and equality. The threat is clear: Without racial division, their strategy crumbles.

Conclusion: A Call to Reflection

Trump’s rise and enduring support reveal deep racial divisions. His strategy exploits these to maintain power, threatening democracy. To move forward, America must confront this truth, addressing race’s role in politics.

The choice is clear: confront racism’s grip on America or risk losing democracy. Reflection and action are urgent as the nation’s future hangs in the balance.

Supreme Court Orders Trump Admin to Bring Back Deported Father

Brent Edward
-
0
Supreme Court Orders Trump Admin to Bring Back Deported Father

Key Takeaways:

  • The Supreme Court told the Trump administration to help bring back a Maryland father mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
  • The ruling was unanimous, with all justices agreeing, which is unusual for this conservative court.
  • Legal experts question how the government will enforce this decision since El Salvador controls its prisons.

A Rare Rebuke from the Supreme Court

In a surprising move, the Supreme Court recently told the Trump administration to try to bring back a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to a dangerous prison in El Salvador. This decision sent a strong message to the Trump administration, showing the court’s disapproval of its actions.

The case involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deported last month to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The court’s ruling was unanimous, meaning all the justices, including the conservative ones, agreed. Jeffrey Toobin, a legal analyst, called this decision “a big deal” from the Supreme Court.

What Does This Ruling Mean?

Toobin explained that this decision is significant because it shows the court is willing to stand up to the Trump administration. However, the ruling also raises many questions. For example, how will the U.S. government get Garcia back when he’s in a foreign prison? The Trump administration has already said it can’t do much because El Salvador controls its prisons.

The Trump Administration’s Response

When the Trump administration said it couldn’t bring Garcia back, many people, including CNN’s Anderson Cooper, found this excuse hard to believe. The U.S. pays millions of dollars to El Salvador to hold deported individuals, so it seems like the administration could do more to help Garcia.

Toobin also pointed out that if the U.S. really wanted to bring Garcia back, it likely could find a way. But he also asked, “What happens if Garcia doesn’t come back? How can the court enforce this decision when it involves another country?”

The Legal Gray Areas

The Supreme Court’s decision leaves many questions unanswered. For example, who will enforce this decision? The court said a lower court should handle Garcia’s return, but that court has no power over El Salvador. This makes it unclear how effective the ruling will be.

Another big question is how hard the Trump administration will try to bring Garcia back. Will it make a real effort, or will it ignore the court’s instructions?

What’s Next?

The Supreme Court’s decision is a clear sign that it disapproves of the Trump administration’s actions in this case. However, the real-world impact of this ruling is still uncertain. It’s up to the courts and the administration to figure out how to bring Garcia back and ensure this mistake doesn’t happen again.

In the end, this case shows how complex and challenging it can be when the U.S. government tries to enforce decisions in other countries. It also highlights the ongoing tension between the Trump administration and the judiciary system.

Watch the video of Toobin’s analysis for more details.

US-China Trade War Escalates: Tariffs Soar, Global Markets Worry

Brent Edward
-
0
US-China Trade War Escalates: Tariffs Soar, Global Markets Worry

Key Takeaways:

  • China raises tariffs on US goods from 84% to 125%.
  • The US has 145% tariffs on Chinese products.
  • The trade war between the two nations is getting worse.
  • Global markets are nervous about a possible economic slowdown.

China and the US Are Fighting a Trade War. Here’s What You Need to Know.

The world’s two biggest economies, the United States and China, are in the middle of a heated trade war. Recently, China announced it would increase tariffs on US goods. Tariffs are like taxes on imported products. China’s tariffs will jump from 84% to 125%.

Meanwhile, the US has its own tariffs on Chinese goods, which now add up to 145%. This back-and-forth has worried investors and businesses worldwide. Many fear it could slow down the global economy.

What’s Happening?

US President Donald Trump recently paused import taxes for other countries, but China wasn’t so lucky. He increased tariffs on Chinese goods, and now China is fighting back. Chinese officials have called the US actions “economic bullying.” They promised to take countermeasures to protect their economy.

The new tariffs will make US products more expensive in China. For example, American cars, electronics, and other goods will cost Chinese buyers more. This could hurt US companies that rely on selling to China.

Why Does This Matter?

A trade war is like a fight where both sides impose tariffs. The goal is to force the other country to change its policies. But these fights often hurt businesses and consumers. For example:

  • Higher Prices: Tariffs make imported goods cost more. This means shoppers in both countries could pay more for things like phones, clothes, and cars.
  • Slow Growth: If trade slows down, it could lead to a global economic slowdown. This might affect jobs, wages, and overall economic growth.
  • Market Worries: Investors are nervous about the trade war. This can cause stock markets to go up and down, making it harder for people to predict the economy.

What’s Next?

No one knows how long this trade war will last. Both countries are holding firm. The US wants China to change its trade practices, like protecting intellectual property and opening its markets. China says it will defend its interests and not back down.

For now, the tariffs are here to stay. They will likely affect businesses and consumers in both countries. The world will be watching to see if the two sides can reach an agreement or if the fight gets even worse.

How Does This Affect You?

Even if you’re not in the US or China, this trade war can impact you. For example:

  • Global Economy: If businesses slow down, it could affect jobs worldwide.
  • Higher Prices: If tariffs make goods more expensive, you might pay more for things you buy.
  • Market Changes: Investors might be more cautious, which could affect savings and investments.

The Bigger Picture

The US-China trade war is more than just tariffs. It’s about which country will lead the global economy in the future. The US wants to stay on top, while China is growing fast and wants fair treatment.

This fight is not just about money. It’s also about technology, power, and influence. Both countries want to lead in areas like artificial intelligence, 5G networks, and green energy.

What’s Being Done to Fix This?

Both countries have talked about negotiating, but progress has been slow. The US is also working with other countries to pressure China. Meanwhile, China is finding new trading partners to reduce its reliance on the US.

For now, it’s a waiting game. The world hopes the two sides can find a solution before things get worse.

Final Thoughts

The US-China trade war is getting more intense. Higher tariffs on both sides are causing worries about the global economy. While the fight is between two superpowers, its effects are felt worldwide. Only time will tell if they can work things out or if the trade war will keep growing.

White House Blasts Democrats Over Insider Trading Probe

Brent Edward
-
0
White House Blasts Democrats Over Insider Trading Probe

Key Takeaways:

  • White House accuses Democrats of political games over tariff pause.
  • Tensions rise as Democrats demand insider trading investigation.
  • President Trump’s tariff decision sparks economic debate.
  • Lawmakers clash over China trade policies and transparency.

White House Slams Democrats Over Tariff Pause and Insider Trading Claims

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by temporarily halting special tariffs on imported goods for 90 days. This decision sparked a heated debate in Washington, with the White House and Democrats trading sharp words. The White House accused Democrats of playing political games, while Democrats are calling for an investigation into possible insider trading.

What’s Happening with the Tariffs?

President Trump announced a 90-day pause on customized reciprocal tariffs. This means that certain imported goods will have lower or no tariffs for three months. The goal is to ease trade tensions and support American businesses and consumers.

The White House says the move is meant to calm the markets and reassure Americans about their economic security. They argue that Democrats are overreacting and using the situation for political gain.

Democrats Demand Answers

Despite the White House’s defense, Democrats are pushing for an investigation. They allege that some people may have used inside information about the tariff decision to make profitable trades. This is a serious accusation, as insider trading is illegal and unethical.

Democrats also criticized Trump for not addressing China’s unfair trade practices more effectively. They argue that the tariff pause is not enough to protect American workers and industries.

White House Fires Back

The White House fired back at Democrats, accusing them of hypocrisy. They pointed out that Democrats have long complained about China’s unfair trade practices but are now criticizing Trump for taking action. The administration claims that Democrats are more focused on politics than solving the real issues.

The White House also emphasized the need to keep markets stable. They say that constant fearmongering by the media and Democrats is unsettling for investors and consumers. Trump’s tariff pause is seen as a way to restore confidence in the economy.

What’s Next?

The clash over tariffs and insider trading allegations highlights the deep political divide in Washington. Democrats and Republicans are unlikely to agree anytime soon, and the situation could escalate further.

The debate also raises questions about transparency and accountability in government decisions. If an investigation is launched, it could reveal more about how the White House handled the tariff pause and whether any laws were broken.

As the political battle continues, Americans will be watching closely to see how it affects the economy and their daily lives. One thing is certain: this is a story to keep an eye on in the coming weeks.

In conclusion, the White House and Democrats are locked in a fierce debate over tariffs and insider trading claims. While the administration defends its actions as necessary for economic stability, Democrats are pushing for answers and accountability. As the situation unfolds, it’s clear that politics and economics are deeply intertwined in this high-stakes battle.

Supreme Court Rules on Deported Maryland Man’s Return

Brent Edward
-
0
Supreme Court Rules on Deported Maryland Man’s Return

Key Takeaways:

  • The Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to help Kilmar Abrego Garcia return to the U.S.
  • The court removed the deadline set by a lower court for his return.
  • Garcia, a Maryland resident, was deported despite a court ruling that the deportation was wrongful.

A Wrongful Deportation and a Long Fight Home

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man, found himself in the middle of a legal storm after being deported from the U.S. despite a court ruling that the deportation was wrongful. His case caught national attention, and now, the Supreme Court has stepped in.

On Thursday, the nation’s highest court made a significant decision. It ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” Garcia’s return to the United States. However, the court also scrapped the deadline that a lower court had set for his homecoming. This means the administration must take steps to bring Garcia back but is no longer tied to a specific timeline.

What Happened to Kilmar Abrego Garcia?

Garcia’s story began when he was deported from the U.S. even though a court had already ruled that his deportation was wrongful. This meant that he was sent out of the country without proper legal justification. The error left Garcia separated from his family and life in Maryland, sparking a legal battle to bring him back.

The case highlighted issues with immigration enforcement and the challenges faced by individuals navigating the complex U.S. immigration system. Garcia’s situation also raised questions about accountability when governmental actions lead to harm for individuals.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court’s ruling is a mixed outcome for Garcia. On one hand, it confirms that the Trump administration must take action to facilitate his return to the U.S. This is a victory for Garcia and his legal team, as it ensures that efforts will be made to bring him home.

On the other hand, the court removed the deadline that had been set by a lower court. This means that while the administration must act, there is no clear timeframe for when Garcia will be able to reunite with his family. For Garcia, this could mean a longer wait, adding to the uncertainty and hardship he has already faced.

What’s Next for Kilmar Abrego Garcia?

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, the focus shifts to how the Trump administration will implement the decision. The administration must take concrete steps to facilitate Garcia’s return, but without a deadline, the process could drag on.

Garcia’s legal team has expressed relief that the court acknowledged the need for his return but has also criticized the removal of the deadline. They argue that without a clear timeline, Garcia’s case could be left unresolved for an indefinite period.

For now, Garcia remains outside the U.S., waiting for the administration to act. His case serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by individuals caught in the complexities of the immigration system.

Reactions to the Ruling

Advocacy groups and immigration lawyers have weighed in on the ruling. Many see it as a partial win, as it acknowledges the wrongdoing in Garcia’s deportation. However, the lack of a deadline has been met with disappointment.

“This ruling sends a mixed message,” said one immigration advocate. “While it’s a step in the right direction, it leaves Kilmar and his family in limbo. Justice delayed is justice denied.”

Garcia’s family in Maryland has also expressed frustration. “We just want Kilmar to come home,” said a family member. “It’s been too long, and we’re tired of waiting.”

A Broader Implications

Garcia’s case is not isolated. It shines a light on the broader issues of immigration enforcement and the impact of governmental errors on individuals and families. The ruling could set a precedent for similar cases, where individuals are wrongfully deported and must fight to return to the U.S.

The case also raises questions about the balance of power between the courts and the executive branch. While the Supreme Court affirmed the need for Garcia’s return, it also limited the lower court’s authority by scrapping the deadline. This could have implications for future cases involving

States Sue Trump Admin Over COVID-19 Education Funds

Brent Edward
-
0
States Sue Trump Admin Over COVID-19 Education Funds

Key Takeaways:

  • A group of Democratic state attorneys general, led by New York’s Letitia James, is suing the Trump administration.
  • The lawsuit aims to stop the administration from cutting off over $1 billion in COVID-19 relief funds for K-12 students.
  • The funds are intended to address the long-term effects of the pandemic on education.
  • The White House has not yet commented on the matter.

What’s Happening: The Lawsuit

New York Attorney General Letitia James is leading a group of Democratic state attorneys general in a lawsuit against the Trump administration. The legal action seeks to prevent the administration from withholding over $1 billion allocated to help K-12 students affected by the long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Why This Matters: Impact on Students

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted education, leading to learning losses and increased mental health challenges for many students. The $1 billion in funding is crucial for providing resources to schools, including tutoring, mental health support, and technology to bridge learning gaps exacerbated by the pandemic.

What’s at Stake: Losing the Funding

If the Trump administration succeeds in cutting off this funding, schools across the U.S. could lose essential resources needed to support students recovering from the pandemic’s effects. This could worsen existing inequalities in education, particularly affecting underserved communities relying heavily on federal assistance.

What’s Next: The Legal Battle

The lawsuit represents a significant legal challenge to the administration’s decision. As the case progresses, the court will determine whether the funding cuts are lawful. If successful, the lawsuit will ensure continued support for schools struggling to address the pandemic’s aftermath.

In summary, this legal battle highlights the ongoing efforts to secure necessary resources for educating children affected by COVID-19, emphasizing the importance of federal funding in supporting students’ recovery and future success.

Trump Proposes $1 Trillion Defense Budget Amid Rising Threats

Brent Edward
-
0
Trump Proposes $1 Trillion Defense Budget Amid Rising Threats

Key Takeaways:

  • President Trump proposes a $1 trillion defense budget.
  • The Pentagon faces challenges from past spending cuts.
  • Foreign threats, including China and Russia, are increasing.
  • The budget aims to modernize and strengthen U.S. defenses.

Why $1 Trillion Makes Sense

President Trump has suggested a significant increase in the U.S. defense budget to $1 trillion. This proposal comes at a time when the country’s military is facing numerous challenges, both from within and abroad.

A Growing Threat Landscape

The world is becoming a more dangerous place. Countries like China and Russia are strengthening their military capabilities. China is expanding its navy and developing advanced missiles, while Russia continues to assert itself aggressively in regions like Ukraine. Additionally, threats from terrorist groups and cyberattacks remain persistent. These developments highlight the need for a strong and modern military.

Past Cuts and Current Challenges

In the past, especially after the Cold War, the U.S. reduced its military spending. During President Obama’s era, there were further limits on defense budgets. These cuts have left the military with outdated equipment and struggles to maintain readiness. Meanwhile, potential adversaries have been busy building up their forces, creating a gap in military capabilities.

What the $1 Trillion Budget Means

The proposed $1 trillion budget is intended to address these issues. It will be used to modernize equipment, ensuring the military has the latest technology. This includes updating weapons systems and enhancing cybersecurity to counter digital threats. The budget will also focus on improving readiness through better training and maintenance. Additionally, it will support personnel by providing improved pay and benefits to attract and retain skilled service members.

Is $1 Trillion Enough?

While $1 trillion is a substantial amount, some argue that it might not be sufficient given the rapidly evolving threats. For instance, China’s increasing military strength and advancements in artificial intelligence pose significant challenges. Moreover, the rise of new technologies requires continuous investment to stay ahead. This raises questions about whether the proposed budget will be enough to address both current and future threats.

The Future of U.S. Defense Spending

Looking ahead, it’s clear that the U.S. will need to consistently invest in its military. This is crucial not only to deter current threats but also to prepare for future challenges. As global tensions rise, a strong defense budget becomes increasingly important to maintain national security and global stability.

Conclusion

President Trump’s proposal for a $1 trillion defense budget reflects the urgent need to strengthen the U.S. military. Given the growing threats from countries like China and Russia, along with the need to modernize and prepare for future challenges, this investment is seen as a necessary step. Whether this amount is sufficient remains to be seen, but it is a significant move toward ensuring the military’s readiness and capability in an increasingly complex world.

1...971972973...2,365Page 972 of 2,365

Explore

Trending

Follow us

© All Rights Reserved, Newspaper Theme.