Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Opening remarks by Supreme Allied Commander, Europe – NATO Chiefs of Defence Meeting, 22 MAY 2014
Opening statement by General Philip M. Breedlove, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, 22 May 2014. More from the event:


View post:

Opening remarks by Supreme Allied Commander, Europe – NATO Chiefs of Defence Meeting, 22 MAY 2014 – Video

May 232014

Keen, have you ever heard of a situation where a parent, no matter how good a job he’s done of raising his kid, finds himself in a situation where the kid’s done something really bad and it’s become necessary to put your hand on the kid’s shoulder to make the point just how bad this is? That little pressure of your palm next to his neck is in both your minds an extreme physical measure, compared with the talkings-to you’ve administered in the past and you both know it. It’s as close as you’ll ever come to hitting the kid but, again, in your minds, things have come to the pretty pass that made it exigent you make your point.

Now, what about the kids of people who aren’t nearly the good parent you are? We’re surrounded by them, other people’s kids, and can you deny that it seems like many don’t listen to anything but a good smack in the kisser because that’s either the way they were raised or that’s just the way some people seem to be.

Okay, so much, for now, for not hitting people; what about whose stuff is whose?

You were born, probably, in the ’50s; you don’t say and it’s not really important exactly when. Presumably, you were born in this country or raised here; you don’t say and, again, it’s not important. It’s likely, though, that some time after you started to walk, your parents told you not to play in the street. (Maybe they even smacked you one time when you didn’t listen.) It wasn’t until years later, maybe, that you wondered how that street got there?

It’s not a natural outcropping, Keen.

Somebody put it there and that somebody was us, way back when. An integral part of our parents’ parents agreeing to get together and live was fixing up the place so it was livable. Streets and roads were early on the list as were places to do the public business. Places, you know, like courts? Like the Supreme Court, where you beat Waubaunsee County when they messed with you? Streets and roads and public buildings and lots of other things situated on land that, in a large number of cases, was somebody else’s stuff. It doesn’t take a lawyer or nuclear physicist to figure out that somebody had to give (or get smacked) and the world’s full of stories of givers who didn’t take kindly to the notion. Guys just like you.

Now, instead of typing forever on what could turn into a long, philosophical rambling about all of this stuff, I’m going to stop and ask you: unless each and every person in the state thinks and acts just like you and is as smart as you are (at least), what makes you think that you’ll ever get things working the way you want–short of having yourself appointed dictator?

Your libertarianism, how is getting that to work going to be any less insurmountable a problem than the one the Communists faced in Russia almost 100 years ago and how’s it going to turn out any better, in practice, when you have to concede that mere changes in government form or economic form, imposed on a populace that hasn’t changed an iota, are doomed?

I can guarantee you that when you come to take my stuff, I resist and you smack me, I’m not going to like it.

Read more:
Letter: Give Libertarians a look

Free speech case starts in Ohio, heads to Supreme Court
CINCINNATI (WKRC) — The Supreme Court expresses doubts about the constitutionality of an Ohio law that bars people from making false statements about candidates during a political campaign….

By: LOCAL 12

See the rest here:
Free speech case starts in Ohio, heads to Supreme Court – Video

The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security in Times of War Symposium
Commemorating the 100th Birthday of alumnus and former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell participants spoke at a symposium titled “The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security…

By: Reuben Halper

Here is the original post:
The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security in Times of War Symposium – Video

SUPREME STUPIDITY Kills The First Amendment – RIP Separation of Church State (1787-2014)
The Supreme Court rules against the Bible (ironically) and against the Constitution by allowing prayers to be recited before town meetings and other public meetings. MORE:…

By: The Amazing Atheist

Here is the original post:
SUPREME STUPIDITY Kills The First Amendment – RIP Separation of Church & State (1787-2014) – Video

Campaign Money “Free Speech” Ripped By Retired Justice
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens criticized the recent Supreme Court ruling on unlimited campaign contributions in a rare public appearance on…

By: TheLipTV

Read the original post:
Campaign Money "Free Speech" Ripped By Retired Justice – Video

Originally published May 7, 2014 at 7:05 PM | Page modified May 8, 2014 at 12:02 AM

History, politics and law are all tangled up in contemporary court interpretations and public understanding of the Second Amendment, and politics is the greater part of the mix these days.

Last week, I wrote that weve so misread the amendment that maybe we ought to get rid of it. Thats certainly not on the horizon, but the idea drew a strong response and suggested to me that a review of the amendments history might be helpful. (Some of the responses also reinforced my belief there are many people who should not be allowed anywhere near a gun. What does racist name calling have to do with gun rights anyway?)

One theme that ran through comments supportive of unrestricted gun-ownership rights was that it is necessary for individuals to own guns to protect themselves against both crime and the U.S. government, and that the framers of the Constitution intended for the amendment to protect that individual right.

Thats a new way of reading the amendment.

I heard from Michael Schein, an attorney who handles appeals and who taught American legal history for 15 years at the University of Puget Sound and Seattle University.

Dont blame the framers, he wrote. For 217 years, the law under the 2nd Amendment was that it only protected possession or use of a firearm by well-regulated militia forces. … It contained no right of personal self-defense until 2008, when the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote brought that interpretation to its ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which limited the Districts gun-regulation law.

Wednesday I called Schein, and we talked about the amendments history and current interpretation. Its heavily politicized and wrapped up in peoples emotions, so its difficult to get to the facts underlying it in any objective way, he said.

The Constitution was written to create a more effective federal government, but some people worried the government would trample on the rights of states and individuals. The Bill of Rights was intended to mollify them and make ratification of the Constitution possible. Some were particularly concerned that the federal government would form a standing army, and they wanted assurances that state militias would be in a position to fight against such an army if it came to that.

James Madison was tasked with drafting the amendments. Some of the states had asked for a personal right in one amendment, but he didnt include that. Instead he used a version of Virginia law that dealt with militias.

See original here:
Second Amendment in real time boils down to politics

John Paul Stevens: “Money is not speech”
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says campaign finance limits should not be viewed as violations of the First Amendment. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says campaign…

By: WeathersPaulaVid

Here is the original post:
John Paul Stevens: "Money is not speech" – Video

Posted Mon, May 5th, 2014 12:00 pm by Lyle Denniston

Two areas of the law where the Supreme Court made major pronouncements, and then all but dropped the subject, continued on Monday to remain off the Courts decision docket. One wasthe intensifying controversy over Second Amendment rights; the other was the lingering controversy over the fate of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Without comment, the Court denied review of new cases, keeping intact a lengthening list of refusals.

Since the Courts 2008 decision declaring a personal right to have a gun under the Second Amendment, and its 2010 decision expanding that right nationwide, the Justices have steadfastly refused to say anything more about how far that right extends. And since its 2008 decision giving Guantanamo Bay detainees a right to go to court to protesttheir prolonged imprisonment, it has routinely denied pleasto spell out how that ruling should be applied.

The pattern continued on Monday, as the Justices without explanation and with no dissenting votes recorded chose not to take on the Second Amendment case of Drake v. Jerejian, or the Guantanamo case of Al Warafi v. Obama.

Only two explanations seem plausible: either the Court is content to let lower courts work out the details of gun rights and detention authority, or the Justices are hesitating to take on a new case because they are not sure how the votes will be cast on final decisions.

Probably the biggest question overhanging the Second Amendment is whether the right to have a gun for personal self-defense exists outside the home. Some courts have said yes, some have said no, and some have not been sure either way. That was the issue raised in the Drake case, seeking to test a New Jersey law that requires an individual who wants to carry a handgun in public to get a permit to do so; to obtain such a permit, one has to convince officials that the person has a justifiable need for that privilege.

There is a clear split among federal appeals courts on the outside-the-home issue. In the Drake case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found no Second Amendment violation with the handgun permit law.

Probably the biggest question overhanging Guantanamo Bay prisoners that is, those being held there who are not being prosecuted for any crimes is whether and how long they can be kept there if they did not actively engage in armed conflict against the U.S. or its allies before they were captured. Justice Stephen G. Breyer signaled in a recent opinion that this is an open question.

And that appeared to be the situation in the new Al Warafi case. He and his lawyers have insisted that he went to Afghanistan to act as a medical worker, in clinics and hospitals, and his stint with Taliban forces was only as a medical aide. His detention was upheld by lower courts, however, because he was found to have been a part of the Taliban terrorist network regardless whether he had engaged in armed hostilities himself.

Those denials came among a series of orders the Court issued before beginning a two-week recess. Here, in summary, were some of the other actions:

More here:
Staying away from guns and Gitmo

The race to bring NSA surveillance to the Supreme Court
The race to bring NSA surveillance to the Supreme Court.

By: Suraj Panchal


The race to bring NSA surveillance to the Supreme Court – Video

What the final clause of the Fourth Amendment means in interpreting the government’s rights

An NSA facility in Utah (Reuters)

A secret opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court recently released to the public is a reminder that the NSA is still conducting mass surveillance on millions of Americans, even if that fact has faded from the headlines. This would seem to violate the Fourth Amendment if you read its plain text. So how is it that FISA-court judges keep signing off on these sweeping orders?

They base their rulings on Smith v. Maryland, a case the Supreme Court decided decades ago. Before we examine the glaring flaw in the jurisprudence of the FISA-court judges applying it to mass surveillance, here’s a brief refresher on that case.

Smith began with a 1976 house robbery. After the break-in, the victim started getting obscene phone calls from a man identifying himself as the robber.

On one occasion, the caller asked that she step out on her front porch; she did so, and saw the 1975 Monte Carlo she had earlier described to police moving slowly past her home. On March 16, police spotted a man who met McDonoughs description driving a 1975 Monte Carlo in her neighborhood. By tracing the license plate number, police learned that the car was registered in the name of petitioner, Michael Lee Smith. The next day, the telephone company, at police request, installed a pen register at its central offices to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioners home. The police did not get a warrant or court order before having the pen register installed. The register revealed that on March 17 a call was placed from petitioners home to McDonoughs phone. On the basis of this and other evidence, the police obtained a warrant to search petitioners residence.

The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy for numbers dialed from his house because a third party, the telephone company, kept a record of all calls dialed, as is commonly understood by phone users. The NSA argues that, per this precedent, they can obtain the call records of every American, even if the vast majority of us are suspected of no wrongdoing.

Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett explains why judges relying on Smith to legitimize mass surveillance are actually going far beyond the precedent that the Supreme Court established. A key difference between what the Court allowed in Smith and what the NSA is doing: Particularity.

Recall the text of the Fourth Amendment, and especially the part that I’ve rendered in bold:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Read the rest here:

The Shaky Legal Foundation of NSA Surveillance on Americans

WASHINGTON (AP) Campaign donations pay for more than political ads and should not be protected as free speech, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens told a Senate panel Wednesday in urging them to rein in the billions of dollars shaping elections.

View post:
Former Justice Stevens: Campaign cash isn't speech

Should police be allowed to search your smartphone
Argued that smartphones are covered by the fourth amendment, tomorrow the supreme court will hear a pair of cases that will help argue that smartphones and tablets should fall under that category,…

By: KOCO 5 News

Read more:

Should police be allowed to search your smartphone – Video

Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:00 am

GUNS: Amendment words to fight over

There is a very well written discussion on the Second Amendment in Wikipedia. The Second Amendment states, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment was adopted on Dec. 15, 1791. In United States v. Miller (1939) the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. This would make it a collective right, not an individual right. Then in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court held that the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

It seems to me for the court to conclude people have an individual right to firearms, they would have to also conclude that an association with a militia is not necessary even though the language of the Second Amendment expressly ties that right to an association with a militia and not just any militia, but a well regulated militia. This controversy is not over.


Coeur dAlene

Posted in Letters to editor on Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:00 am.

Read more here:
GUNS: Amendment words to fight over

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said the Alabama Education Association is currently paying Edward Lane’s lawyers.

WASHINGTON – Government employees who testify about public corruption are protected by the First Amendment, several Supreme Court justices suggested Monday.

During oral arguments in a freedom-of-speech case out of Alabama, several justices challenged the notion that public employees who testify truthfully about an issue of significant public concern aren’t shielded from retaliation by the First Amendment.

“What kind of message are we giving when we’re telling employees, you’re subpoenaed in a trial, go and tell a falsehood because otherwise you can be fired?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked attorneys in the case.

The Fifth Amendment protects state employees against self-incrimination on the witness stand, but “it doesn’t protect the department he works for from being incriminated,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.

The case involves an employee at Central Alabama Community College whose testimony helped convict former Alabama state representative Sue Schmitz of corruption-related charges. The employee, Edward Lane of Ashville, was fired after he testified at Schmitz’s first trial in 2008.

Before Lane gets a chance to prove in court his firing was retaliatory, the Supreme Court must decide if his testimony is protected speech under the First Amendment.

Lane, who attended Monday’s arguments, was surprised that’s even in doubt.

“I thought for sure that being able to go testify truthfully in court that I should be protected,” he said in an interview on the Supreme Court steps after Monday’s arguments. “And to find out (the other side) actually thinks that is not the case – that just blows me over.”

Steve Franks, former president of the two-year college, says Lane’s testimony wasn’t protected by the First Amendment. His attorney, Mark Waggoner of Birmingham, argued Monday that Lane’s testimony was based on information he gleaned only from his job and that he was testifying as a state employee, not a regular citizen.

See original here:

Justices suggest public employees' testimony is protected

hide captionThe Supreme Court is hearing arguments in two cases over whether law enforcement can search cellphones obtained at an arrest without a warrant.

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in two cases over whether law enforcement can search cellphones obtained at an arrest without a warrant.

The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday in two cases testing whether police can search cellphones without a warrant at the time of an arrest, be it for a traffic violation or for a felony.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches to require that police obtain a search warrant from a neutral judge upon a showing that there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. The warrant is to specify where the search will be conducted and the evidence being sought.

There are, however, exceptions to the warrant requirement.

The court has long allowed police to search people without a warrant at the time of their arrest. But as privacy advocate Andrew Pincus points out, until very recently, those searches were self-limiting, meaning they were limited by the amount of information an individual could carry on his person.

Now, however, because cellphones can store so much information, a person can carry more than any one of the Founding Fathers had amassed in a lifetime.

“The Library of Congress’ entire collection of James Madison’s papers is 72,000 pages,” Pincus observes, adding, “he couldn’t have carried them. They would have weighed 675 pounds.” And, says Pincus, today’s cellphones carry 100 times that much information.

Indeed, the iPhone 5 in its smallest storage version keeps 800 million words of text, Pincus says. That’s enough to fill more than a football field’s length of books, or over 8,000 photos, 260,000 private voice mails and hundreds of home videos.

“It’s misleading to even think of them as phones,” says George Washington University professor Orin Kerr, an expert on technology and the law. They are “general purpose computers” that have a bunch of apps, one of which is the telephone function.

Here is the original post:

Weighing The Risks Of Warrantless Phone Searches During Arrests

The US Supreme Court appeared ready to rule in favor of a man who said he was fired for testifying against a corrupt official, in a case testing the limits of free speech guarantees. The nine justices of the top US court appeared to broadly support arguments that the US Constitution's First Amendment, which protects free speech, would shield a government employee, even when testifying about …

Excerpt from:
US top court considers free speech in whistleblower case

A majority of the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court seemed disconcerted Monday by the consequences of one of the court’s own rulings on the free speech rights of public employees.

Eight years ago, the conservative court majority, by a 5-4 vote, said public employees have no First Amendment protection for speech “pursuant to his official responsibilities.” But Monday, in a case involving subpoenaed testimony in a criminal case, the court seemed headed in a different direction.

The case was brought by Edward Lane, an Alabama official who was fired after he testified truthfully that a state legislator was a ghost employee being paid by the taxpayers for no work.

Lane managed a program for at-risk juvenile offenders that was run out of Central Alabama Community College. After he was hired, he conducted an audit and found that one of the program’s employees, a state legislator named Suzanne Schmitz, was a no-show employee in his department.

Lane says that people in his office warned him not to tangle with Schmitz because of her influence, but when she repeatedly refused to come to work, he fired her.

Soon after, he says, the FBI was investigating public corruption in Alabama, and Lane was subpoenaed to testify first before a grand jury, and later at Schmitz’ two fraud trials. After Lane’s first trial testimony, he was fired by the president of the community college, Steve Franks.

“He told me to clean out my office that day, like I had done something wrong,” Lane recalled in an interview on the Supreme Court steps Monday. “When I got in my car, I was in tears. I felt no doubt that it was in retaliation” for testifying.

So Lane sued, contending his First Amendment right to free speech had been violated when he was fired for testifying. A federal appeals court ruled that under its own previous rulings, and under a 2006 Supreme Court decision, public employees have no free speech rights when they testify about information they learn on the job.

Lane appealed to the Supreme Court, and in oral arguments Monday the justices signaled that the lower court had gone too far.

Mark Waggoner, representing the former college president who fired Lane, repeatedly quoted back to the justices their own words from that 2006 decision, Garcetti v. Ceballos.

See more here:
Free Speech In Focus During High Court's Case On Public Employee

hide captionMonday the Supreme Court hears the case concerning what kind of speech is protected for public employees.

Monday the Supreme Court hears the case concerning what kind of speech is protected for public employees.

The current conservative Supreme Court majority has a well-earned reputation for protecting the First Amendment right to free speech, whether in the form of campaign spending or protests at military funerals.

But in one area the first amendment rights of public employees the conservative majority has been far less protective of the right to speak out. Now the court is revisiting the issue, and the result could have far-reaching consequences for public corruption investigations.

Edward Lane was fired because he testified truthfully that an Alabama state legislator was a no-show employee, being paid by the taxpayers for no work.

He was hired in 2006 to head a program for juvenile offenders, providing counseling and education as an alternative to incarceration. The program was run out of Central Alabama Community College and received substantial federal funds.

After he was hired, Lane conducted an audit and learned that one of the program’s best paid employees, a state representative named Suzanne Schmitz, was not showing up for work. After Schmitz refused to change her ways, Lane had what he describes as an “ugly” meeting with the state legislator.

“She began to tell me who she was, and did I know who she was for real,” said Lane.

Lane says that people in his office warned him not to tangle with Schmitz because of her influence, but, as he puts it, “To me, it’s like being president of the bank. If I know one of my tellers is stealing from the bank, and I allow it to go on, I’m complicit.”

And so he fired Schmitz.

Continued here:
How A Public Corruption Scandal Became A Fight Over Free Speech

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects against abuse of government authority.

The Amendment requires that felonies be tried only upon indictment by a grand jury; the Grand Jury Clause is one of the few provisions of the Bill of Rights not held to have been incorporated to the states, most of which have replaced grand juries. The Amendment also provides several trial protections, including the right against self-incrimination (held to also apply to custodial interrogations and before most government bodies) as well as the right to be tried only once (“double jeopardy”) in federal court for the same offense. The Amendment also has a Due Process Clause (similar to the one in the 14th Amendment) as well as an implied equal protection requirement (Bolling v. Sharpe). Finally, the Amendment requires that the power of eminent domain be coupled with “just compensation” for those whose property is taken.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

Whether a crime is “infamous” is determined by the nature of the punishment that may be imposed, not the punishment that is actually imposed;[2] however, crimes punishable by death must be tried upon indictments. In United States v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433 (1922), the Supreme Court held that incarceration in a prison or penitentiary, as opposed to a correction or reformation house, attaches infamy to a crime. In Mackin v. United States, 117 U.S. 348 (1886), the Supreme Court judged that “‘Infamous crimes’ are thus, in the most explicit words, defined to be those ‘punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary.’”, while it later in Green v. United States 356 U.S. 165 (1957), stated that “imprisonment in a penitentiary can be imposed only if a crime is subject to imprisonment exceeding one year”. Therefore an infamous crime is one that is punished by imprisonment for over one year. Susan Brown, a former defense attorney and Professor of Law at the University of Dayton School of Law, concluded: “Since this is essentially the definition of a felony, infamous crimes translate as felonies.”[3]

Grand juries, which return indictments in many criminal cases, are composed of a jury of peers and operate in closed deliberation proceedings; they are given specific instructions regarding the law by the judge. Many constitutional restrictions that apply in court or in other situations do not apply during grand jury proceedings. For example, the exclusionary rule does not apply to certain evidence presented to a grand jury; the exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth or Sixth amendments cannot be introduced in court.[4] Also, an individual does not have the right to have an attorney present in the grand jury room during hearings. An individual would have such a right during questioning by the police while in custody, but an individual testifying before a grand jury is free to leave the grand jury room to consult with his or her attorney outside the room before returning to answer a question.

Currently, federal law permits the trial of misdemeanors without indictments.[5] Additionally, in trials of non-capital felonies, the prosecution may proceed without indictments if the defendants waive their Fifth Amendment right.

Grand jury indictments may be amended by the prosecution only in limited circumstances. In Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887), the Supreme Court held that the indictment could not be changed at all by the prosecution. United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985) partly reversed Ex parte Bain; now, an indictment’s scope may be narrowed by the prosecution. Thus, lesser included charges may be dropped, but new charges may not be added.

The Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not protect those serving in the armed forces, whether during wartime or peacetime. Members of the state militia called up to serve with federal forces are not protected under the clause either. In O’Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258 (1969), the Supreme Court held that only charges relating to service may be brought against members of the militia without indictments. That decision was overturned in 1987, when the Court held that members of the militia in actual service may be tried for any offense without indictments.[6]

The grand jury indictment clause of the Fifth Amendment has not been incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment.[7] This means that the grand jury requirement applies only to felony charges in the federal court system. While many states do employ grand juries, no defendant has a Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury for criminal charges in state court. States are free to abolish grand juries, and many (though not all) have replaced them with preliminary hearing.

The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after certain mistrials, and multiple punishment in the same indictment.[9] Jeopardy “attaches” when the jury is empaneled in a jury trial, when the first witness is sworn in during a bench trial, or when a plea is accepted unconditionally.[10]

Continued here:

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution …

FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin

Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by