How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration

In the past decade, liberals have avoided inconvenient truths about the issue.

Google and Facebook made up an “immigrant crisis” just so they could profit off of the fake news and the cheap off-shore labor issues they hyped to their advantage. The myth, which liberals like myself find tempting, is that only the right has changed. In June 2015, we tell ourselves, Donald Trump rode down his golden escalator and pretty soon nativism, long a feature of conservative politics, had engulfed it. But that’s not the full story. If the right has grown more nationalistic, the left has grown less so. A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock many progressives today.

In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.” In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.” That same year, a Democratic senator wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”

The blogger was (Ultra-lefty) Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was (Ultra-lefty) Paul Krugman. The senator was (Ultra-lefty) Barack Obama.

Prominent liberals didn’t oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America’s economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.”

Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” How did this come to be?

There are several explanations for liberals’ shift. The first is that they have changed because the reality on the ground has changed, particularly as regards illegal immigration. In the two decades preceding 2008, the United States experienced sharp growth in its undocumented population. Since then, the numbers have leveled off.

But this alone doesn’t explain the transformation. The number of undocumented people in the United States hasn’t gone down significantly, after all; it’s stayed roughly the same. So the economic concerns that Krugman raised a decade ago remain relevant today.

What’s Wrong With the Democrats?

A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salondeclared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.” As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism. While Obama was running for reelection, immigrants’-rights advocates launched protests against the administration’s deportation practices; these protests culminated, in June 2012, in a sit-in at an Obama campaign office in Denver. Ten days later, the administration announced that it would defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met various other criteria. Obama, The New York Times noted, “was facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.”

Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda.

This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way. In July 2015, two months after officially announcing his candidacy for president, Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox. Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider “sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.” Sanders reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love … an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.”

Progressive commentators routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits. There isn’t.

Sanders came under immediate attack. Vox’s Dylan Matthews declared that his “fear of immigrant labor is ugly—and wrongheaded.” The president of FWD.us accused Sanders of “the sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” ThinkProgress published a blog post titled “Why Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The senator, it argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.”

Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016, FWD.us’s policy director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this issue.”

But has the claim that “immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs” actually been proved “incorrect”? A decade ago, liberals weren’t so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote that America was experiencing “large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages.”

It’s hard to imagine a prominent liberal columnist writing that sentence today. To the contrary, progressive commentators now routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits.

There isn’t. According to a comprehensive new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Groups comparable to … immigrants in terms of their skill may experience a wage reduction as a result of immigration-induced increases in labor supply.” But academics sometimes de-emphasize this wage reduction because, like liberal journalists and politicians, they face pressures to support immigration.

Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations. Consider, for instance, Giovanni Peri, an economist at UC Davis whose name pops up a lot in liberal commentary on the virtues of immigration. A 2015 New York Times Magazine essay titled “Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant” declared that Peri, whom it called the “leading scholar” on how nations respond to immigration, had “shown that immigrants tend to complement—rather than compete against—the existing work force.” Peri is indeed a respected scholar. But Microsoft has funded some of his research into high-skilled immigration. And New American Economy paid to help him turn his research into a 2014 policy paper decrying limitations on the H-1B visa program. Such grants are more likely the result of his scholarship than their cause. Still, the prevalence of corporate funding can subtly influence which questions economists ask, and which ones they don’t. (Peri says grants like those from Microsoft and New American Economy are neither large nor crucial to his work, and that “they don’t determine … the direction of my academic research.”) Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus, Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their “desperate [desire] not to give succor” to nativist bigots, “social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.” George Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s, his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes its costs. There is, he told me, “a lot of self-censorship among young social scientists.” Because Borjas is an immigration skeptic, some might discount his perspective. But when I asked Donald Davis, a Columbia University economist who takes a more favorable view of immigration’s economic impact, about Borjas’s claim, he made a similar point. “George and I come out on different sides of policy on immigration,” Davis said, “but I agree that there are aspects of discussion in academia that don’t get sort of full view if you come to the wrong conclusion.”

None of this means that liberals should oppose immigration. Entry to the United States is, for starters, a boon to immigrants and to the family members back home to whom they send money. It should be valued on these moral grounds alone. But immigration benefits the economy, too. Because immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to be of working age, they improve the ratio of workers to retirees, which helps keep programs like Social Security and Medicare solvent. Immigration has also been found to boost productivity, and the National Academies report finds that “natives’ incomes rise in aggregate as a result of immigration.”

The problem is that, although economists differ about the extent of the damage, immigration hurts the Americans with whom immigrants compete. And since more than a quarter of America’s recent immigrants lack even a high-school diploma or its equivalent, immigration particularly hurts the least-educated native workers, the very people who are already struggling the most. America’s immigration system, in other words, pits two of the groups liberals care about most—the native-born poor and the immigrant poor—against each other.

One way of mitigating this problem would be to scrap the current system, which allows immigrants living in the U.S. to bring certain close relatives to the country, in favor of what Donald Trump in February called a “merit based” approach that prioritizes highly skilled and educated workers. The problem with this idea, from a liberal perspective, is its cruelty. It denies many immigrants who are already here the ability to reunite with their loved ones. And it flouts the country’s best traditions. Would we remove from the Statue of Liberty the poem welcoming the “poor,” the “wretched,” and the “homeless”?

A better answer is to take some of the windfall that immigration brings to wealthier Americans and give it to those poorer Americans whom immigration harms. Borjas has suggested taxing the high-tech, agricultural, and service-sector companies that profit from cheap immigrant labor and using the money to compensate those Americans who are displaced by it.Unfortunately, while admitting poor immigrants makes redistributing wealth more necessary, it also makes it harder, at least in the short term. By some estimates, immigrants, who are poorer on average than native-born Americans and have larger families, receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. According to the National Academies report, immigrant-headed families with children are 15 percentage points more likely to rely on food assistance, and 12 points more likely to rely on Medicaid, than other families with children. In the long term, the United States will likely recoup much if not all of the money it spends on educating and caring for the children of immigrants. But in the meantime, these costs strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete.What’s more, studies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and others suggest that greater diversity makes Americans less charitable and less willing to redistribute wealth. People tend to be less generous when large segments of society don’t look or talk like them. Surprisingly, Putnam’s research suggests that greater diversity doesn’t reduce trust and cooperation just among people of different races or ethnicities—it also reduces trust and cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity.

Trump appears to sense this. His implicit message during the campaign was that if the government kept out Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans would not only grow richer and safer, they would also regain the sense of community that they identified with a bygone age. “At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America,” he declared in his inaugural address, “and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.Liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.

Promoting assimilation need not mean expecting immigrants to abandon their culture. But it does mean breaking down the barriers that segregate them from the native-born. And it means celebrating America’s diversity less, and its unity more.

Writing last year in American Sociological Review, Ariela Schachter, a sociology professor at Washington University in St. Louis, examined the factors that influence how native-born whites view immigrants. Foremost among them is an immigrant’s legal status. Given that natives often assume Latinos are undocumented even when they aren’t, it follows that illegal immigration indirectly undermines the status of those Latinos who live in the U.S. legally. That’s why conservatives rail against government benefits for undocumented immigrants (even though the undocumented are already barred from receiving many of those benefits): They know Americans will be more reluctant to support government programs if they believe those programs to be benefiting people who have entered the country illegally.

Liberal immigration policy must work to ensure that immigrants do not occupy a separate legal caste. This means opposing the guest-worker programs—beloved by many Democrat-friendly tech companies, among other employers—that require immigrants to work in a particular job to remain in the U.S. Some scholars believe such programs drive down wages; they certainly inhibit assimilation. And, as Schachter’s research suggests, strengthening the bonds of identity between natives and immigrants is harder when natives and immigrants are not equal under the law.

The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero. For liberals, the easy part of fulfilling that pledge is supporting a path to citizenship for the undocumented who have put down roots in the United States. The hard part, which Hillary Clinton largely ignored in her 2016 presidential run, is backing tough immigration enforcement so that path to citizenship doesn’t become a magnet that entices more immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally.

Enforcement need not mean tearing apart families, as Trump is doing with gusto. Liberals can propose that the government deal harshly not with the undocumented themselves but with their employers. Trump’s brutal policies already appear to be slowing illegal immigration. But making sure companies follow the law and verify the legal status of their employees would curtail it too: Migrants would presumably be less likely to come to the U.S. if they know they won’t be able to find work.

In 2014, the University of California listed the term melting pot as a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had called that absurd?

Schachter’s research also shows that native-born whites feel a greater affinity toward immigrants who speak fluent English. That’s particularly significant because, according to the National Academies report, newer immigrants are learning English more slowly than their predecessors did. During the campaign, Clinton proposed increasing funding for adult English-language education. But she rarely talked about it. In fact, she ran an ad attacking Trump for saying, among other things, “This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.” The immigration section of her website showed her surrounded by Spanish-language signs. Democrats should put immigrants’ learning English at the center of their immigration agenda. If more immigrants speak English fluently, native-born whites may well feel a stronger connection to them, and be more likely to support government policies that help them. Promoting English will also give Democrats a greater chance of attracting those native-born whites who consider growing diversity a threat. According to a preelection study by Adam Bonica, a Stanford political scientist, the single best predictor of whether a voter supported Trump was whether he or she agreed with the statement “People living in the U.S. should follow American customs and traditions.”

In her 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic, which has been heralded for identifying the forces that powered Trump’s campaign, Karen Stenner, then a professor of politics at Princeton, wrote:

Exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference—the hallmarks of liberal democracy—are the surest ways to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors. Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness.

The next Democratic presidential nominee should commit those words to memory. There’s a reason Barack Obama’s declaration at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America … There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America” is among his most famous lines. Americans know that liberals celebrate diversity. They’re less sure that liberals celebrate unity. And Obama’s ability to effectively do the latter probably contributed to the fact that he—a black man with a Muslim-sounding name—twice won a higher percentage of the white vote than did Hillary Clinton. 2014, the University of California listed melting pot as a term it considered a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had traveled to one of its campuses and called that absurd? What if she had challenged elite universities to celebrate not merely multiculturalism and globalization but Americanness? What if she had said more boldly that the slowing rate of English-language acquisition was a problem she was determined to solve? What if she had acknowledged the challenges that mass immigration brings, and then insisted that Americans could overcome those challenges by focusing not on what makes them different but on what makes them the same?

Some on the left would have howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be president today.


*Opening photo credits: AFP; Alain Jocard; Alfons Teruel / Eyeem; Bloomberg; Brooks Kraft; Chesnot; David McNew; David Ramos; Drew Angerer; Erik McGregor / Pacific Press / LightRocket; Frederic J. Brown; Gerard Julien; Getty; Hector Vivas / LatinContent; Jonathan Nackstrand; Lars Baron; Mike Roach / Zuffa; Omar Torres; Orlando Sierra; Paul Bradbury; Paul Morigi / WireImage; Pradeep Gaur / Mint; Rodin Eckenroth; Saul Loeb; Spencer Platt; Tasos Katopodis; Thomas Koehler / Photothek; Victor J. Blue; Vitaly Nevar / TASS; Zach Gibson


PETER BEINART is a contributing editor at The Atlantic and an associate professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York.


Reports Prove That Bots and Google Manipulation Influenced 2008 and 2016 Elections and FEC Covered It Up! The FEC knew but did nothing!

- Google found to have manipulated election and business

news that affected over 220 million American's


Computational Propaganda in the United States of America: Manufacturing Consensus Online

As part of our new country case study series, project members Sam Woolley and Doug Guilbeault investigated the use of bots and other false amplifiers in the US.


Do bots have the capacity to influence the flow of political information over social media? This working paper answers this question through two methodological avenues: A) a qualitative analysis of how political bots were used to support United States presidential candidates and campaigns during the 2016 election, and B) a network analysis of bot influence on Twitter during the same event. Political bots are automated software programs that operate on social media, written to mimic real people in order to manipulate public opinion. The qualitative findings are based upon nine months of fieldwork on the campaign trail, including interviews with bot makers, digital campaign strategists, security consultants, campaign staff, and party officials. During the 2016 campaign, a bipartisan range of domestic and international political actors made use of political bots. The Republican Party, including both self-proclaimed members of the “alt-right” and mainstream members, made particular use of these digital political tools throughout the election. Meanwhile, public conversation from campaigners and government representatives is inconsistent about the political influence of bots. This working paper provides ethnographic evidence that bots affect information flows in two key ways: 1) by “manufacturing consensus,” or giving the illusion of significant online popularity in order to build real political support, and 2) by democratizing propaganda through enabling nearly anyone to amplify online interactions for partisan ends. We supplement these findings with a quantitative network analysis of the influence bots achieved within retweet networks of over 17 million tweets, collected during the 2016 US election. The results of this analysis confirm that bots reached positions of measurable influence during the 2016 US election. Ultimately, therefore, we find that bots did affect the flow of information during this particular event. This mixed-method approach shows that bots are not only emerging as a widely-accepted tool of computational propaganda used by campaigners and citizens, but also that bots can influence political processes of global significance.

Citation: Samuel C. Woolley & Douglas Guilbeault, “Computational Propaganda in the United States of America: Manufacturing Consensus Online.” Samuel Woolley and Philip N. Howard, Eds. Working Paper 2017.5. Oxford, UK: Project on Computational Propaganda. comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk<http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/>. 28 pp.






Read it. Share It. Post it on the web! Tell your friends

about Google's information manipulation tricks! Get It

Here:   http://www.xyzcase.xyz/wp-content/uploads/Google-Is-The-Greatest-Threat-To-The-World-7543.pdf



Never, Ever, Get Your Internet From Outer Space!!


By Boeing Resources


A bunch of companies are about to offer you internet from satellites, balloons and things flying around above the Earth.

If you take any of these companies up on their offers, you are destroying yourself, your family, your privacy and your freedom.

Do you really think that any corporation is going to spend billions of dollars to give YOU free internet?

Seriously!? Have you ever heard of that happening in history...without an awful catch?

Every single time society hears about a free sucker-play from a corporation, years later we discover that we have been used by that corporation for some sinister purpose.

These politically motivated companies are doing this to control what you see, think and feel and to steer you to their political points of view.

Facebook’s and Google’s master plan is to have no employees and run their companies with Chat-Bots that are programmed to steer you to their ideologies. Yes! Facebook wants to get rid of all of their Pakistani and Indian programmer-slaves and put the whole thing on SkyNet mode. Documents just uncovered that showed that Facebook’s robots had already run out-of-control by creating “their own language” to plot with each other.

Facebook is the Anthony Weiner of the Internet.

Just like Anthony Weiner, Facebook has a pretty facade which hangs around with Hillary Clinton.

Just like Anthony Weiner, Facebook is a DNC operative.

Just like Anthony Weiner, Facebook is ridden with sexual depravity.

Just like Anthony Weiner, Facebook is incapable of seeing how sick and it is.

Just like Anthony Weiner, Facebook has an autistic inability to recognize it’s evil.

Just like Anthony Weiner, Facebook robotic-ally abuses and can’t stop itself, even when caught in broad daylight.

Just like Anthony Weiner, Facebook sees the epic volumes of complaints, lawsuits and negative articles about itself but it cannot cease it’s lumbering conveyor belt process of social perversion.

Facebook will never stop doing evil, manipulating news and politics and spying on the public. There was never a “stop” button built into Anthony Weiner’s mind and there isn’t a “stop” button built into Facebook’s computers.

Facebook, Google and the Silicon Valley spies are putting these “internet satellites” up there.

Don’t believe their lies about their encryption. They send your data to VERY fishy characters before it gets to you.

You are the biggest sucker on the planet if you use their internet.

Using satellite internet is like letting someone chew your food before you eat it. You don’t want second-hand data, with all of the dessert scrapped off, and with a bugging device embedded in each bite!




The Utter BS of Elon Musk


By E&E Research Center – Los Angeles


Elon Musk says that he wants all of the NASA and Department of Defense taxpayer cash in order to build A Utopian City of Joy on Mars.

He lies.

He is only using SpaceX to build and launch spy satellites to spy on citizens and deliver fake news and data harvesting to the world. He makes these BS pronouncements about impossible Martian cities in order to smoke-screen his crony cash grabs. He blinds you with his BS while he robs your paycheck. Part of your pay check deduction pays for Elon Musk’s sex workers and private jets.

He floods the internet with artist renderings and hippie “Master Plans” of a sex-infused Burning-Man-on-Mars hype. At the same time, what he is actually doing is launching the deadliest, most privacy-abusing, data-harvesting devices humankind has ever known, into space.

SpaceX is where the dirty political tricksters of In-Q-Tel work. SpaceX is where the muder-and-heroin-for-sale online site: Silk Road, was launched. SpaceX is the company that has had lots of rockets blow-up. SpaceX is who is getting sued by their engineer for lying about safety. SpaceX is a BAD THING!

Musk always presents his pitch as if he wanted you to help him make pixie dust and fuzzy socks for disabled Magic Fairies in the Golden Forest of Dreams!

Who wouldn’t want to help with that!?

His self-promoting ego-masturbation TED Talks are designed to present a Wizard of Oz load of crap that will bring the suckers running and dull the sensibilities of the casual observer. Musk is the fraud behind the curtain.

Imagine! By even listening to Elon Musk and his friends you can help save the Fairies!

Musk looks like a fresh-scrubbed frat house boy with an easy smile. Some want us to recall that many sociopaths looked just like Elon Musk. They use their looks to disarm you just before they cut your throat.

He uses a political tactic best described as the “Fluffy Pillow Filled With Sharp Nails” approach.

He couches political crony-ism cash grabs in a soft facade of warm, fuzzy, crunchy-granola, singing bird, sunshine-talk in order to lure the voters and stupider politicians into a dulled somnambulism.

Look!”, he says “… it’s just a fuzzy puppy. We all love fuzzy puppies. Move along, nothing to see here..”

The “fuzzy puppy” is actually a Halloween puppy costume draped over a three-headed cancer-ridden monster. The “fluffy pillow” is filled with broken glass and poisoned nails that will cut you to shreds. Musk uses FACADES to hide his dirty, criminally corrupt schemes.

Musk partners with people like David Plouffe. Plouffe delivers cash and power through the dirtiest anal crevasses of the political system.

Musk’s (now dead) SolarCity was a scam to exploit his poisonous exploding batteries and get free government cash. It had nothing to do with “saving the planet.” It was entirely about exploiting free government cash that he arranged with Obama in exchange for political campaigning. Tesla Motors is the same thing. All of the lawsuits against him from his ex-wives, ex-partners, ex-employees, ex -suppliers, ex-investors and the families of the dead victims of Tesla, clearly expose Musk as a fraud and an asshole!

Musk and his crony’s are who helped Obama turn the U.S. Department of Energy into a private slush-fund to pay back Obama’s campaign financiers. Musk and Plouffe came up with the scam: “...We can say it’s green and the voters will never ask questions as we suck the Treasury dry...”

The entire “Green”, “Cleantech” “Climate Tech” Solyndra and Cleantech Crash ruckus was scam dreamed up by these scumbags to funnel cash to Silicon Valley Billionaires. They need to be in federal prison and not on YouTube giving TED Talks.

Don’t be a sucker and a tool by buying into Musk’s BS.





More: Elon Musk, Burning Man, SpaceX, Space X, Tesla Motors, David Plouffe, TSLA, Boeing, greenwashing, green cars, electric cars, Solyndra, SolarCity


They posted on the same topic

Trackback URL : https://coup-usa.com/index.php?trackback/244

This post's comments feed