Roy Bleckert

FROM SILICON VALLEY TO MAIN STREET: AMERICA'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROBLEM IS BIGGER THAN NVIDIA Two stories. One national question: Can America protect the people and businesses that create its economic future? By Roy Bleckert | IE Newswire For years, America's economic advantage has rested on a powerful idea: invent something better, build it, protect it, and sell it to the world. That formula helped create Silicon Valley. It built manufacturing companies, supported millions of jobs, and turned American innovation into an economic force. But what happens when the technology is targeted, the trade secrets disappear, or a competitor gets access to the very information that took years and millions of dollars to develop? And what happens when the company trying to protect its work doesn't have NVIDIA's resources—or its army of lawyers? Those questions connect two stories that might seem worlds apart. One involves NVIDIA, the semiconductor giant at the center of the artificial-intelligence revolution, and a leadership crisis involving its founder, Jensen Huang. The other involves a Rancho Cucamonga man who pleaded guilty to possessing trade secrets taken from Southern California employers and using them to market his own competing business to a China-based company. One story reaches the highest levels of the technology industry and national-security debate. The other reaches right into the Inland Empire. Together, they raise a much bigger question about America's ability to protect its intellectual property—and the people whose livelihoods depend on it. NVIDIA: WHEN BUSINESS BECOMES A NATIONAL-SECURITY QUESTION NVIDIA is not just another technology company. Its advanced processors have become critical components in the global race to develop artificial intelligence. Its products are sought after by American technology companies, international competitors, and governments seeking access to advanced computing power. That makes the company's technology strategically important. In November 2026, NVIDIA's board announced an independent investigation following reports that founder and CEO Jensen Huang had been targeted by a foreign intelligence effort involving Alice Huang, a former executive associated with Singapore-based Megaspeed. The allegations raised questions about possible access to sensitive company information and whether advanced NVIDIA processors were improperly obtained for Chinese customers. Huang publicly acknowledged an affair and apologized to his family and colleagues. NVIDIA's board said it had no reason to believe company secrets or national security had been compromised, while announcing an independent investigation. On November 12, NVIDIA announced that Huang had resigned as president and CEO, effective November 11. Chief Financial Officer Colette Kress was named interim CEO while the board searches for a permanent successor. These are extraordinary developments at one of the world's most consequential technology companies. But the distinction matters: the reported foreign-intelligence allegations are not proof that NVIDIA's technology was compromised, and the company's investigation does not establish that espionage occurred. The questions are nevertheless serious. How does a company protect its technology when its products are essential to a global strategic competition? How does it protect sensitive information when international business relationships, access to executives, and export controls intersect? And what responsibility do American companies have when their products and intellectual property have implications beyond the marketplace? This is no longer simply a corporate leadership story. It is part of a larger debate about technology, economic security, and America's relationship with China. MAIN STREET: THE SAME PROBLEM WITHOUT THE BILLION-DOLLAR LEGAL DEPARTMENT Now bring the issue closer to home. In February 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Liming Li, 66, of Rancho Cucamonga, had pleaded guilty to possessing trade secrets belonging to former Southern California employers. According to federal prosecutors, Li had downloaded sensitive technology from those employers and used it to market his own competing company to a China-based business. The case involved proprietary technology and information associated with precision measuring instruments and manufacturing. This was not an allegation in a political speech or a warning from a trade organization. It was a federal criminal case resulting in a guilty plea. And it happened here in the Inland Empire. Consider what that means for a small manufacturer. A company spends years developing a specialized product. It invests in equipment, engineering, employees, research, and production. Its competitive advantage may depend on a manufacturing process or a design that competitors cannot easily duplicate. Now imagine losing control of that information. A larger competitor may have the resources to fight. A small business may not. It may not have an international legal team, a Washington lobbyist, or the money to spend years pursuing a case overseas. For that company, the damage can be immediate: lost contracts, lower prices, reduced market share, and fewer jobs. The Rancho Cucamonga case demonstrates that the threat to intellectual property is not confined to Silicon Valley. It can involve ordinary businesses and workers in Southern California. WASHINGTON HAS BEEN WARNING ABOUT THE PROBLEM The U.S. Trade Representative's 2025 Special 301 Report placed China on its Priority Watch List for serious intellectual-property concerns. The report identified continuing problems involving trade secrets, technology transfer, counterfeiting, online piracy, and patent protection. The report also discussed concerns about China's implementation of intellectual-property commitments under the 2020 Phase One trade agreement. These findings do not mean every Chinese company steals intellectual property. They do not mean every product manufactured in China is counterfeit. But they do show that the U.S. government continues to identify significant problems in protecting American intellectual property in the Chinese market. And this is not simply about corporate profits. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office research cited in the USTR report estimates that intellectual-property-intensive industries account for approximately 63 million American jobs, directly and indirectly, and about 41% of U.S. gross domestic product. Those numbers cover a broad range of industries. They are not a count of jobs lost to China. They do, however, illustrate how much of the American economy depends on innovation, proprietary knowledge, and the ability to protect what businesses create. COMPETITION IS NOT THE ENEMY. THEFT IS. Let's make an important distinction. Chinese companies have every right to compete. They have every right to develop their own products, improve manufacturing, hire talented engineers, and sell goods around the world. That's competition. But stealing trade secrets, counterfeiting products, misappropriating proprietary technology, or improperly obtaining restricted technology is something else entirely. America should welcome legitimate competition. It should also enforce the rules that protect legitimate innovation. That means protecting trade secrets, investigating credible allegations, enforcing export controls, prosecuting proven violations, and making sure American businesses have a meaningful way to defend their intellectual property. It also means American companies must protect their own information. Employee access, cybersecurity, business partnerships, and handling of proprietary technology are not minor administrative concerns. They are part of protecting a company's future. The answer isn't to shut down international trade or treat every Chinese business as a suspect. The answer is to make sure competition is actually competition. THE QUESTION AMERICA NEEDS TO ANSWER NVIDIA's situation illustrates the national-security stakes when advanced technology becomes central to global competition. The Rancho Cucamonga case illustrates how trade-secret issues can affect businesses much closer to home. Different companies. Different circumstances. Different scales. But both bring us back to the same basic question: What good is being the country that invents the future if we cannot protect the people and businesses that create it? The small manufacturer doesn't need a congressional hearing to understand the problem. The inventor doesn't need a national-security briefing to know what happens when someone takes years of work and turns it into a competing product. They need a system that protects legitimate innovation and gives businesses a realistic chance to defend what they have built. America cannot expect entrepreneurs to keep taking risks, investing in new ideas, hiring workers, and building businesses if the value of their work can be taken without meaningful consequences. This is bigger than NVIDIA. Bigger than one criminal case. Bigger than one trade dispute. It is about the economic foundation of the country. They built it. They invested in it. They created it. Protecting that work should be a national priority. — Roy Bleckert | IE Newswire

WHO'S FLYING THE PLANE? FAA'S $875 MILLION AI ROLLOUT MET A NATIONWIDE GROUND STOP. THE QUESTIONS ARE STILL UNANSWERED. By Roy Bleckert | IE Newswire On Friday, November 13, the FAA grounded every departing flight in the country after communications failures disrupted air traffic control facilities. Thousands of flights were delayed or canceled. Aircraft already airborne continued to their destinations. Everything else stopped for roughly four to five hours. Officials blamed overloaded switches and routers within the FAA's aging telecommunications network. No cyberattack was identified. Air Space Intelligence, the company behind the FAA's new SMART system, insisted its software was not involved. Three days earlier, on November 10, the FAA had expanded SMART, its artificial intelligence-assisted traffic management system, to all 22 air route traffic control centers. The system had been operating in the Washington region since September 21. During that initial deployment, the FAA says SMART helped reroute 180 flights, saving approximately 10 minutes and 80 gallons of fuel per flight. Encouraging numbers? Perhaps. But that's a remarkably limited track record for a nationwide expansion. Congress had questions. In October, approximately two dozen lawmakers, led by Senator Chris Van Hollen and Representative April McClain Delaney, demanded a pause and answers to 18 questions involving safety testing, controller training, system performance during outages, override procedures and accountability. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association said it had not participated in SMART's design, testing or implementation. The FAA expanded anyway. SMART analyzes approximately 200 data streams and recommends routes and scheduling adjustments. It is an advisory system, not an autonomous air traffic controller. Human personnel retain operational authority. On paper, that sounds reassuring. In practice, having a human in the loop doesn't automatically guarantee meaningful human oversight. When a system processes more information than an individual can independently scrutinize in real time, how much weight does its recommendation carry? Can controllers recognize flawed recommendations? Can they challenge the technology without institutional pressure? And when something goes wrong, who takes responsibility? The November 13 communications failure appears to have involved legacy infrastructure, not SMART itself. That distinction matters. There is currently no established evidence that SMART caused the shutdown. But it doesn't end the story. It raises a bigger question about the wisdom of layering sophisticated new technology onto an aging aviation infrastructure while questions about integration, testing and controller involvement remain unanswered. Consider the timeline: June: FAA awards Air Space Intelligence a contract worth up to $875.9 million over 12 years. September 21: Initial SMART deployment begins in the Washington region. October: Lawmakers raise 18 questions about safety, oversight and accountability. November 10: FAA announces expansion to all 22 air traffic control centers. November 13: Nationwide ground stop following communications failures. The FAA and its contractor say SMART was not responsible. That may ultimately prove correct. But a company denial is not an independent investigation. A human signature on a computer-generated recommendation is not the same as independent judgment. And a nationwide rollout should not move faster than the ability to demonstrate that it is safe. The FAA owes the American public answers. What exactly failed on November 13? Did any newly introduced technology interact with the legacy systems? What independent testing was completed before nationwide expansion? Were the concerns raised by Congress adequately addressed? And who is ultimately accountable when technology fails? An $875 million government contract deserves scrutiny. A nationwide AI deployment deserves independent oversight. Aviation safety is not a beta-testing exercise. The question isn't whether artificial intelligence belongs in America's skies. It's whether the FAA knows exactly what it's putting up there—and who's responsible when something goes wrong. Roy Bleckert | IE Newswire See less

THEY BUILT IT. CHINA COPIED IT. AMERICA LOST IT. The high cost of intellectual-property theft for American businesses—and the small companies that often have the least power to fight back By Roy Bleckert | IE Newswire Imagine spending years developing a product. You invest your savings. You hire employees. You work through prototypes, manufacturing problems, customer complaints, and the endless expenses of getting a business off the ground. You finally have something that works. Something customers want. Something that gives your company an advantage. Then a competitor gets its hands on the design, the software, the manufacturing process, or the trade secrets behind it. Suddenly, a nearly identical product appears at a fraction of the price. You spent years building the business. Someone else may have found a shortcut to competing with it. And if that competitor operates overseas, particularly in a market where enforcement is difficult, fighting back can become an expensive and exhausting proposition. This is one of the less visible costs of America's economic relationship with China: the battle over intellectual property. It's not just about computer chips, artificial intelligence, or billion-dollar technology companies. It's about manufacturing, machinery, software, consumer products, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and the independent businesses that depend on their ideas to survive. And the Inland Empire has a direct connection to the problem. THIS ISN'T JUST A SILICON VALLEY STORY In February 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Liming Li, 66, of Rancho Cucamonga, had pleaded guilty to possessing trade secrets belonging to his former Southern California employers. According to the Justice Department, Li had worked for a company specializing in precision measuring instruments and related technology. He had access to proprietary software source code and other company information. After leaving the company, he retained information he was required to return. Prosecutors said he continued accessing that material without authorization and used it for his own economic benefit while working with a China-based manufacturer. Li pleaded guilty to one count of possessing trade secrets. At the time of the announcement, he faced a statutory maximum of 10 years in federal prison. This case is important because it puts a local face on a problem often discussed in abstract national-security terms. The technology involved wasn't a futuristic weapons system or a semiconductor breakthrough. It included the kind of precision measurement equipment used in manufacturing. The case also illustrates an important point: intellectual property can leave a business through someone who already has legitimate access to it. The threat isn't always a hacker breaking through a firewall. Sometimes the vulnerability is an employee, a former executive, a business relationship, or a competitor looking for information it didn't develop itself. The Justice Department brought the case under its Disruptive Technology Strike Force initiative. <Cite refs={["turn104240view0"]}/> WASHINGTON HAS BEEN WARNING ABOUT IT This isn't a new concern, and it isn't limited to one administration. The Office of the United States Trade Representative's 2025 Special 301 Report kept China on its Priority Watch List for intellectual-property protection and enforcement. The report identified continuing concerns involving trade secrets, counterfeiting, online piracy, patent protection, technology transfer, and policies that may pressure foreign companies to transfer technology to Chinese businesses. The report also said China had failed to implement, or only partially implemented, a number of intellectual-property commitments made under the 2020 U.S.-China Phase One trade agreement. <Cite refs={["turn790526search1","turn104240view1"]}/> Those are serious findings from the U.S. trade representative. They are not proof that every Chinese business engages in theft, nor do they mean every product manufactured in China is counterfeit. But they do establish that the U.S. government continues to identify significant problems in the protection of American intellectual property in the Chinese market. And the concern extends beyond China. Counterfeiting, piracy, and trade-secret theft are international problems. China, however, remains a central focus of U.S. trade-policy concerns. THE SMALL BUSINESS HAS A BIG PROBLEM A major corporation can employ lawyers, security specialists, lobbyists, and investigators. It may have the resources to pursue a case across international borders. A small manufacturer may have none of those advantages. For a small business, its intellectual property might be the only thing separating it from dozens of competitors. It could be a proprietary manufacturing process, a specialized piece of equipment, a software application, a patented design, a customer database, or a product that took years to perfect. If that advantage disappears, the business may lose customers, contracts, market share, and ultimately jobs. Even when a company has a legitimate legal claim, pursuing it can be expensive. Litigation takes time. International enforcement can be difficult. And by the time a business gets a favorable ruling, the market may already have moved on. The damage isn't always a dramatic corporate collapse. Sometimes it's a business that stops expanding, a factory that doesn't hire, an inventor who decides the next idea isn't worth the risk. Those losses are harder to measure, but they matter. THE ECONOMIC STAKES ARE MUCH BIGGER The U.S. Trade Representative's 2025 report cites U.S. Patent and Trademark Office research estimating that intellectual-property-intensive industries account for approximately 63 million American jobs, directly and indirectly, and about 41% of U.S. gross domestic product. Those figures cover a broad range of industries—not just technology—and they are not an estimate of jobs lost to Chinese theft. But they help explain why intellectual-property protection is an economic issue, not simply a legal dispute between corporations. <Cite refs={["turn104240view1"]}/> When a company loses control of its innovation, the consequences can reach workers, suppliers, investors, and communities. The person who designed the product may lose the advantage. The people who manufacture it may lose their jobs. The community that depends on the business may lose a source of income and economic activity. And when enough businesses face that pressure, the question becomes larger than one company's bottom line. What happens to an economy when the people who take the risks and pay for innovation cannot reliably protect what they create? COMPETITION IS ONE THING. THEFT IS ANOTHER. Let's be clear: American companies should expect competition. Chinese companies have every right to develop their own products, improve manufacturing, compete on price, and sell goods in the global marketplace. That's business. But stealing trade secrets, counterfeiting products, misappropriating proprietary technology, or pressuring companies to surrender valuable technology is not ordinary competition. The distinction matters. America cannot demand that the rest of the world play by rules that it is unwilling or unable to enforce. Nor can it expect businesses to keep investing in innovation if the reward for doing so is watching someone else take the advantage. The answer isn't to shut down trade or treat every Chinese company as a suspect. It is to enforce intellectual-property laws, protect legitimate business information, pursue proven violations, and make sure American companies have a fair opportunity to compete. That also means American businesses must take responsibility for protecting their own trade secrets. Security procedures, employee agreements, access controls, and careful handling of proprietary information are not optional details anymore. WHO PAYS WHEN THE IDEAS ARE STOLEN? The next time someone talks about intellectual-property theft, don't think only about NVIDIA, Silicon Valley, or a Washington briefing on national security. Think about the small manufacturer. The inventor working out of a garage. The family business that invested everything in a product. The employees whose jobs depend on a company staying competitive. And think about the Rancho Cucamonga case—a reminder that this issue has already reached the Inland Empire. America's economic strength was built on people who were willing to invent, invest, manufacture, and take risks. Protecting that work shouldn't be a partisan talking point or a slogan in a trade dispute. It should be a basic expectation of a country that wants its businesses—and its workers—to remain competitive. They built it. If someone steals it, America shouldn't be the one left paying the bill. — Roy Bleckert | IE Newswire See less

THE ANGRY VOTER 2020 BIDEN. 2024 TRUMP. 2026 DEMOCRATS. WHO THE HELL ARE THEY VOTING FOR IN 2028? Three political perspectives. One election cycle ahead. Let's put some predictions on the record. By Roy Bleckert | IE Newswire Politics has a funny way of humbling people who think they've figured it all out. Consider the last three election cycles. In 2020, Joe Biden assembled a coalition that defeated Donald Trump. In 2024, Trump rebuilt his political coalition, made significant gains among Hispanic voters and younger men, and returned to the White House. Then came the 2026 midterms. Democrats delivered a major electoral rebuke to Republicans, demonstrating once again that political loyalties are not necessarily permanent. So what the hell is going on? I have a theory. And after reading Victor Davis Hanson's recent essay, The Midterm Is Not the Endterm, and discussing the political landscape with ChatGPT, I think there are three different ways to look at where American politics may be headed. Let's put them on the record. VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: THE REPUBLICANS CAN STILL RECOVER Hanson's argument is essentially that the 2026 midterm defeat does not mean the end of the Republican political coalition or the Trump presidency's ability to recover. He believes Democrats could overplay their hand with congressional investigations, subpoenas, impeachment efforts and expansive spending proposals. He points to Bill Clinton's recovery following the 1994 Republican takeover and Barack Obama's recovery following the 2010 midterms. His argument is that Republicans can regain political ground if they remain united, communicate economic improvements more effectively and allow Democrats to become consumed by political investigations and ideological battles. Hanson also argues that the economy is improving and that the final two years of Trump's presidency could become an asset rather than a liability. His basic premise: 2026 was a defeat, but 2028 is still very much in play. CHATGPT: THE PROBLEM MAY BE BIGGER THAN ONE ELECTION My discussion with ChatGPT took a somewhat different direction. The argument wasn't simply about whether Democrats will overreach or whether Republicans can recover. It was about whether the traditional political coalitions are becoming less reliable. ChatGPT pointed out that the Perot movement, the Tea Party and Ron Paul's political movement all demonstrated that substantial numbers of Americans were dissatisfied with the established political order. Each movement had influence, but none established a lasting independent political structure capable of permanently replacing the two-party system. The Tea Party ultimately influenced and reshaped the Republican Party. Perot's Reform Party failed to sustain its initial momentum. Ron Paul's movement developed a devoted ideological following without becoming a dominant national electoral organization. The question now is whether MAGA could experience a similar evolution. Could a new anti-establishment coalition emerge around people such as Tucker Carlson, Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene? Could that coalition attract voters who are dissatisfied with both traditional Republicans and Democrats? ChatGPT's central observation was that movements can change the political conversation without necessarily becoming permanent political parties. But there is another possibility: the next political movement could develop from inside one of the existing parties rather than outside them. ROY BLECKERT: I'M LOOKING AT THE VOTERS, NOT THE PARTIES Here's where I push back on both Hanson and ChatGPT. I think we're looking at something potentially much bigger than a Republican recovery or the emergence of another third party. I'm looking at the voters themselves. Specifically, Hispanics, younger white males, Millennials and Gen Z. Look at the political movement over the last three election cycles. In 2020, Biden attracted voters who wanted a change from Trump. In 2024, Trump attracted voters who were dissatisfied with Biden and the direction of the country. Some of his most significant gains came among Hispanic voters and younger men. In 2026, Democrats made substantial gains again. Does that necessarily mean those voters have permanently returned to the Democratic Party? I don't think we can make that assumption. We also have to distinguish between people actually changing their votes and different groups turning out in different elections. Presidential and midterm electorates are not identical. But here's what interests me. What if a significant portion of these voters aren't particularly loyal to either political party? What if they're simply dissatisfied, frustrated and looking for somebody who speaks to their concerns? They went with Biden. Then Trump. Now Democrats. Perhaps the common denominator isn't an ideological conversion. Perhaps it's dissatisfaction with whoever is in charge. That's my premise. And if that's even partially correct, 2028 becomes a very different political contest. THE OPPORTUNITY: WHO CAN CAPTURE THE ANGRY VOTER? Trump's original political appeal included several promises that resonated beyond traditional Republican voters: No more unnecessary foreign wars. Lower energy prices. Less government waste and spending. Greater transparency and accountability. An economy that works for ordinary Americans. A government that puts American interests first. Now consider the disagreements emerging within the broader MAGA coalition. Tucker Carlson, Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene represent different political constituencies, but there are areas of common ground involving foreign intervention, government accountability and dissatisfaction with political establishments. Could they help create a different kind of political movement? Could they attract voters who supported Trump but are unhappy with the direction of his administration? Could Democrats capture those same voters by offering a credible economic alternative? Or could a new independent movement emerge? There are no easy answers. And let's not forget the historical precedents. Ross Perot attracted nearly one-fifth of the popular vote in 1992. The Tea Party reshaped Republican politics. Ron Paul developed an enthusiastic following around limited government and noninterventionism. All three demonstrated that dissatisfaction can produce significant political energy. But converting that energy into a sustainable political organization is another matter entirely. THE TRUMP WILDCARD There is another major variable. Can Trump recognize the political message of the 2026 midterms and change direction? Clinton did it after 1994. Obama adjusted after 2010. Trump has two years remaining in his term. Could he pivot toward a more disciplined America First agenda? Could he put foreign military entanglements behind him, deliver lower and more stable energy costs, pursue meaningful government spending reductions, and release the Epstein files with appropriate protections for victims? Could he refocus on affordability and the economic concerns that helped bring him back to the White House? His November 6 personnel announcement, replacing Susie Wiles with Stephen Miller as chief of staff, raises another question: Is Trump preparing to change direction, or is he doubling down on the existing approach? The personnel change alone doesn't answer that question. The policies that follow will. LET'S PUT THREE OUTLOOKS ON THE RECORD Here's what we have as of November 6, 2026: VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Republicans can recover. Democrats may overreach, the economy could improve, and 2028 remains a viable Republican opportunity. CHATGPT: The two-party coalitions face growing pressures. Anti-establishment movements can reshape politics, but converting popular dissatisfaction into a lasting political organization is difficult. ROY BLECKERT: The biggest story may be the voters themselves. Hispanic voters, younger white males, Millennials and Gen Z may be increasingly willing to move between political parties depending on who they believe offers something different. The candidate or movement that understands and captures that dissatisfaction could fundamentally change the 2028 political landscape. THE SCORECARD: WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS This isn't an exercise in declaring who is right today. It's about documenting what we're seeing, identifying the competing explanations and measuring them against what actually happens. When the 2028 election is over, we'll revisit this article. We'll examine: Did Republicans recover from the 2026 midterm defeat? Did Democrats overreach and squander their congressional victories? Did Trump successfully change direction and regain support? Did Hispanic voters and younger men return to Republicans, remain with Democrats or continue moving between the parties? Did Millennials and Gen Z establish more consistent political loyalties? Did a Carlson-Massie-Greene coalition become an organized political force? Did a new independent movement emerge, or did the political energy remain within the two major parties? And most importantly: WHO UNDERSTOOD THE ANGRY VOTER? Hanson sees a Republican recovery. ChatGPT sees the possibility of political realignment and the difficulty of sustaining outsider movements. I see a potentially enormous pool of voters who aren't necessarily committed to either party and may be waiting for someone to give them a reason to commit. Maybe all three perspectives will get parts of the story right. Maybe one will be closer than the others. Or maybe 2028 will produce something none of us anticipated. That's why we're putting it on the record now. 2020 BIDEN. 2024 TRUMP. 2026 DEMOCRATS. 2028? LET'S SEE WHO CAN READ THE VOTERS. Roy Bleckert | IE Newswire @SaysMissy @tomdelbeccaro @paulmitche11 @ColePatterson read more here facebook.com/IENewswire/post…

If this does not get everyone's attn dunno what will !!!

AGREE !!!

Ca Charter School Victory !!!

Democrats maybe Bad , but most Republicans are helping them do it !!!

UTLA Teachers Suck! Vote Shaw !!!

THE HEAT IS ON !!!

COMMUNIST CALIFORNIA now eliminating 70% of the Tires you can buy, resulting in cash register law making it so expensive, only the ELITE will be able to afford them !!!

Kids in Public Schools are F'd !!! nitter.cf/SaysMissy/status/20792…

2 of the BEST HUMANS on the Planet !!! @realSonjaShaw @ZavalaA

Gloria is #AAAwesome !!!

Save the Children VOTE SHAW !!!