Category Archives: In The News

And So It Begins! Montana Man Files For License to Marry TWO Women

Collier and Wives

Nathan Collier [center] and his wife Victoria [left] along with wife to be Christine [right] are moving to legalize their plural marriage based on the recent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage

By Gary P Jackson

A couple of days ago I wrote Congratulations Polygamists, Pederasts, Oedipalists, et al.: Your Case is Made, the Precedent is Set! Call the Wedding Planner! where I predicted we’d soon see any number of deviations from traditional marriage, now that the Supreme Court has declared marriage a “right.”

I included a Politico opinion piece that made a pretty solid case for plural marriage [polygamy] based on the arguments used to convince the Court to grant the new “right” for gays to marry.

This from the Associated Press, via The Blaze:

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man has applied for a marriage license so he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier of Billings said Wednesday that last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage inspired him to try to force the acceptance of polygamous marriages.

He says he’ll sue the state if his application is rejected.

Collier says Yellowstone County Courthouse officials initially denied the application Tuesday. When he told officials he planned to sue, they said they would consult with the county attorney before giving him a final answer.

Collier married his first wife, Victoria, in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but didn’t sign a marriage license.

The trio recently has appeared on the reality cable television show “Sister Wives.

Collier and Wife to be

Since plural marriage is currently illegal in all 50 states, Collier [left] has only been legally married to his first wife Victoria. He is moving to now legalize his marriage with Christine [right] who he wed in a religious ceremony in 2007

Part of me mourns civilization, the other part says: “Good for him!” If he is denied the right to marry he should sue the living hell out Yellowstone County and everyone involved! The Court has ruled!

The Daily Mail has more:

It’s about marriage equality,’ Collier said Wednesday. ‘You can’t have this without polygamy.

Collier and his second wife were met with confusion when they went to the Yellowstone County court house on Tuesday to fill out the application.

So, are you legally married, you didn’t get divorced?‘ one clerk asked, when he saw that Collier marked ‘not applicable‘ on a question asking the dissolution date of his previous marriage.

Collier responded that he was indeed still married and trying to marry for a second time.

We’ll have to deny that, let me go grab the other supervisor real quick so I can get confirmation but as far as I’m aware you can’t be married to two people at the same time,’ another clerk said.

County clerk officials initially denied Collier’s application, then said they would consult with the county attorney’s office before giving him a final answer, Collier said.

Yellowstone County chief civil litigator Kevin Gillen said he is reviewing Montana’s bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Collier by next week.

I think he deserves an answer,’ Gillen said, but added his review is finding that ‘the law simply doesn’t provide for that yet.

All we want is legal legitimacy. We aren’t asking anybody for anything else. We just want to give our marriage and our family the legitimacy that it deserves,’ Nathan Collier said.

In a Facebook post on Wednesday, Nathan Collier said he had yet to hear an answer from the county attorney on their decision to grant or deny the marriage license.

However, he says that he has told through ‘other sources‘ that the attorney general’s office is considering charging him for bigamy.

I knew the risks I faced when I asked the State to grant legal legitimacy to my family, and I accepted those risks.
‘I only ask that if their intent is to lock me in a cage
(and we wonder why they keep asking for more money to expand the jails?!?!?) over my family dynamic, contact me privately and I will walk in your front door. ‘I have no reason to run or hide. Please, don’t kick my door in and shoot my dogs,’ Collier wrote.

Collier goes on to say that he is ‘saddened‘ that his family faces such challenges in the ‘land of the free‘.

You can believe that the entire nation is and will be watching your choices and actions. There is no honor in destroying functional families,’ Collier added.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday made gay marriages legal nationwide. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.

Collier, 46, said that dissent inspired him. He owns a refrigeration business in Billings and married Victoria, 40, in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but did not sign a marriage license to avoid bigamy charges, he said.

Collier said he is a former Mormon who was excommunicated for polygamy and now belongs to no religious organization. He said he and his wives hid their relationship for years, but became tired of hiding and went public by appearing on the reality cable television show ‘Sister Wives.’

In the episode, the Colliers hosted the show’s stars – the Brown family – at their home in Billings and discussed their polygamist lifestyles. The Colliers and the Browns had never met before.

The three have seven children of their own and from previous relationships.

In an interview with the Examiner, Nathan Collier said he courted both of his wives at the same time.
He says he fell in love with both and couldn’t choose so they decided to start one family together.

Christine and Victoria said they are so happy with their lifestyle that they are thinking of adding another wife to the mix.
When they first started their family, Victoria and Christine lived in separate houses on different sides of town with Nathan splitting his time between the two.

But now they live together all as one, which they say works better.

My second wife Christine, who I’m not legally married to, she’s put up with my crap for a lot of years. She deserves legitimacy,’ he said.

Collier said he sent an email asking the ACLU of Montana to represent him in a possible lawsuit. ACLU legal director Jim Taylor said he has not seen the request.

Taylor said he has no opinion on Collier’s claims, though the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage ‘is about something very different.’

Anne Wilde, a co-founder of the polygamy advocacy organization Principle Voices located in Utah, said Collier’s application is the first she’s heard of in the nation, and that most polygamous families in Utah are not seeking the right to have multiple marriage licenses.

Callier All In The Family

All in the family: Nathan, Victoria and Christine Collier pictured top center, surrounded by their children who they are raising as one family in Billings, Montana

If we want to get serious for a minute, we must acknowledge that plural marriage, polygamy, is far more legit than gay marriage. Polygamy has been around for thousands of years. It’s spoken of in the Bible. In many societies it is still practiced, often times with these marriages being arranged. Gay marriage, on the other hand is a construct of the mid-to late 20th Century and has almost no history.

If we, as a nation are going to allow something, whose concept is younger than I am, it’s going to be hard to deny one that is older than the Bible! Especially when the applicant can successfully claim the same 14th Amendment “equal protection under the law” protections that gays were granted by the Court!

Welcome to the brave new world of “anything goes“!

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

Government Gone Bad: It’s Time to Let the Export-Import Bank Die

Export-Import-Bank.Logo png

Crony Capitalism on Steroids!

By C.A. Bamford

With US debt spiraling into trillions of dollars, our economy growing at a snail’s pace and reports of mismanagement, blatant corruption and incompetence in every branch of our government surfacing almost daily, ordinary Americans are beginning to pay more attention to what is going on in the no longer hallowed halls of our nation’s capital.

One troubling example of blatant cronyism is the Export-Import Bank, which provides taxpayer-backed loans and loan guarantees to foreign countries and companies to purchase U.S. products. Its charter was set to expire on September 30,, 2014, but with growing opposition to the bank, a 5 year renewal was rejected and supporters settled for a 9 month extension of its existing charter. That extension expired at the end of June.

While Ex-Im claims that 90% of its 2014 transactions supported small business, The Heritage Foundation and George Mason University’s Mercatus Center data shows that only 20% of total Ex-Im authorizations go to small businesses. A number of reports have found that the agency benefits a small number of politically-connected businesses like Boeing, General Electric and Caterpillar. These are all fine companies, but do they really deserve taxpayer-funded handouts when so many other equally fine companies are struggling? In 2013, approximately 30% of the banks transactions benefitted Boeing, earning Ex-Im the nickname “Bank of Boeing”.

EXPORT-IMPORT-CHART

General Electric Chairman and CEO, Jeff Immelt says letting Ex-Im bank’s charter expire, ending their export subsidies for GE and others would be “economic catastrophe”, but the facts say otherwise.

House Finance Committee, Jeb Hensarling, after holding a number of hearings on Ex-Im’s future, chose not to bring a bill reauthorizing the bank through his committee. Hensarling has called the bank a form of “corporate welfare”, stating that big banks primarily profit off Ex-Im. JP Morgan & Chase Co. for example has received more than $5.1 billion from Ex-Im. “To support more robust economic growth, economic justice and equal opportunity for all, it is time to wind down Ex-Im,” Hensarling said.

Meanwhile, Ex-Im officials have revealed that there are 31 open fraud investigations and the potential for many more indictments stemming from Ex-Im transactions. A former bank loan officer, Johnny Gutierrez, pled guilty to accepting bribes 19 different times from 2006 to 2013.

Currently a non-partisan government accountability organization has submitted a FOIA request for text messages between bank officials from a top Ex-Im official, Scott Schloegel. Unfortunately, Schloegel claims that he accidentally deleted the text messages.

Only Congress has the authority to reauthorize the bank’s charter. And although support for the bank has been steadily eroding, the Senate once again voted in favor of reauthorization. In the true spirit of political gamesmanship, Democrat Senators Maria Cantwell of Wa State, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and GOP Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina held the Pacific Trade legislation hostage until (with a little encouragement from President Obama via phone) Senator Mitch McConnell caved and provided the winning margin to extend the life of Ex-Im. Graham bragged about the deal-making on Twitter; “Most important aspect of agreement is we will also have the opportunity to vote on #ExIm reauth attached to the Highway Trust Fund reauth.

The House is now set to let the bank expire and there have been discussion of the Highway Trust Fund being the vehicle for reauthorization. House and Senate Leadership should use this as an opportunity, especially after the recent Supreme Court rulings, to log a win for conservatives.

How Export-Import-Bank Works

Now based in Alaska, longtime contributor Charlene Bamford is a policy adviser and intellectual thinker who teaches at the International School

Leave a comment

Filed under In The News

Congratulations Polygamists, Pederasts, Oedipalists, et al.: Your Case is Made, the Precedent is Set! Call the Wedding Planner!

By Gary P Jackson

In what is certainly the most egregious example of judicial overreach in our nation’s history, the Supreme Court created a “right” that has never before existed. [every state in the USA, and most countries, have put numerous restrictions on who may, or may not marry, and for good reason] By declaring marriage a “right,” The Court opened the door, not only for gay marriage, but for any and all unions that were heretofore unthinkable, and totally unacceptable.

Not since Dred Scott, which essentially said Negroes were not human, but mere property …. farm implements if you will …. and thus, had no constitutional rights whatsoever, and Roe v Wade, which was ACTUALLY about the right to privacy, but was interpreted as creating a “right” to slaughter an innocent child and call it a “choice” [which has led to the slaughter of at least 80 MILLION innocent children, including over 20 MILLION black babies, since 1973] has The Court got it so wrong, and the potential damage to civilized society so great.

As it did in Thursday’s ObamaCare [SCOTUScare?] ruling, The Court has essentially rendered the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, and the concept of state’s rights, null and void.

Full disclosure before we go any further. While I’m not exactly what you’d call an “enthusiastic supporter” of gay marriage, I have absolutely ZERO problem with allowing gays to marry IF it had been done legally, and with the blessing of the American people, not through judicial fiat and activism. In other words, a constitutional amendment that would forever define marriage.

Look for an upcoming post outlining a constitutional amendment that could, and would, satisfy most Americans and ease their legitimate fears of being persecuted for their religious beliefs, while still allowing gay marriage.

In the headline I mention polygamy, the act of marrying more than one person at the same time, and living in a plural relationship, not to be confused with bigamy, being married to more than one person, usually without the other participants’ knowledge of that fact. [though laws against this may be voided as well] I also mention pedophilia, and incestuous relationships. Many will scoff, but the fact is, the happy-happy, rainbows and unicorns, let’s all sing Kumbaya wording in Justice Kennedy’s majority ruling opens up marriage to include any paring, or combination of parings, one can think up. Wanna marry your pet goat? OK. How about your color TV or your toaster? Sure, why not! [you can thank Frank Zappa and Joe’s Garage for that imagery!]

Don’t laugh, in other countries, run by lunatics, people have been allowed to marry trees, cars, and other random things. Nothing like the government indulging the mentally ill!

And yes, the United States is run by lunatics too. The inmates have taken over the asylum!

Here’s the thing, the arguments used to claim gay marriage was a “right,” based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, can be used by ANYONE in a relationship that, until now, has been illegal, or otherwise forbidden by civilized societies.

Don’t laugh! People seem to want to laugh at and ridicule those who talk about “slippery slopes” and the “law of unintended consequences ,” but in most cases, we are usually right on the money. Sometimes it takes years to be proven right, other times we see it almost immediately!

For example …. Friday, while the Court ruling was still sinking in for most people, the left wing website Politico published an opinion piece by Fredrik Deboer entitled: It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.

In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?
Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.

Why the opposition, from those who have no interest in preserving “traditional marriage” or forbidding polyamorous relationships? I think the answer has to do with political momentum, with a kind of ad hoc-rejection of polygamy as necessary political concession. And in time, I think it will change.

The marriage equality movement has been both the best and worst thing that could happen for legally sanctioned polygamy. The best, because that movement has required a sustained and effective assault on “traditional marriage” arguments that reflected no particular point of view other than that marriage should stay the same because it’s always been the same. In particular, the notion that procreation and child-rearing are the natural justification for marriage has been dealt a terminal injury. We don’t, after all, ban marriage for those who can’t conceive, or annul marriages that don’t result in children, or make couples pinkie swear that they’ll have kids not too long after they get married. We have insisted instead that the institution exists to enshrine in law a special kind of long-term commitment, and to extend certain essential logistical and legal benefits to those who make that commitment. And rightly so.

But the marriage equality movement has been curiously hostile to polygamy, and for a particularly unsatisfying reason: short-term political need. Many conservative opponents of marriage equality have made the slippery slope argument, insisting that same-sex marriages would lead inevitably to further redefinition of what marriage is and means. See, for example, Rick Santorum’s infamous “man on dog” comments, in which he equated the desire of two adult men or women to be married with bestiality. Polygamy has frequently been a part of these slippery slope arguments. Typical of such arguments, the reasons why marriage between more than two partners would be destructive were taken as a given. Many proponents of marriage equality, I’m sorry to say, went along with this evidence-free indictment of polygamous matrimony. They choose to side-step the issue by insisting that gay marriage wouldn’t lead to polygamy. That legally sanctioned polygamy was a fate worth fearing went without saying.

To be clear: our lack of legal recognition of group marriages is not the fault of the marriage equality movement. Rather, it’s that the tactics of that movement have made getting to serious discussions of legalized polygamy harder. I say that while recognizing the unprecedented and necessary success of those tactics. I understand the political pragmatism in wanting to hold the line—to not be perceived to be slipping down the slope. To advocate for polygamy during the marriage equality fight may have seemed to confirm the socially conservative narrative, that gay marriage augured a wholesale collapse in traditional values. But times have changed; while work remains to be done, the immediate danger to marriage equality has passed. In 2005, a denial of the right to group marriage stemming from political pragmatism made at least some sense. In 2015, after this ruling, it no longer does.

While important legal and practical questions remain unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s ruling and broad public support, marriage equality is here to stay. Soon, it will be time to turn the attention of social liberalism to the next horizon. Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners. It’s time to legalize polygamy.

***

Conventional arguments against polygamy fall apart with even a little examination. Appeals to traditional marriage, and the notion that child rearing is the only legitimate justification of legal marriage, have now, I hope, been exposed and discarded by all progressive people. What’s left is a series of jerry-rigged arguments that reflect no coherent moral vision of what marriage is for, and which frequently function as criticisms of traditional marriage as well.

This is, sad to say, an incredibly well thought out argument, and one that can be made without the necessity of another court battle. Again, the precedent is set, not only for polygamy, but absolutely ANY relationship and union that has formerly been considered taboo and forbidden. Welcome to the brave new world where court rulings are based on feelings, rather than the Constitution, and common sense!

Let’s visit what Chief Justice Roberts wrote in dissent of the ruling, that strongly warns the ruling opens the door for polygamy: [emphasis mine]

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr. 23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J. 1977 (2015).

I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 6. But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

Think this is no big deal?

In September of 2014 a German ethics committee ruled that INCEST is a “fundamental right“: [emphasis mine]

Incest a ‘fundamental right‘, German committee says

Anti-incest laws in Germany could be scrapped after a government-backed group said relationships between brothers and sisters should be legal

Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said the they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.

Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.

Their intervention follows a notorious case in which a brother and sister living as partners in Saxony had four children together. The couple had been raised separately and only met when the brother, identified only as Patrick S, was an adult, and his sister Susan K was 16.

Patrick S was sentenced to more than three years in prison for incest and the couple have since failed in their bid to have the guilty verdict overturned by the European Court of Human Rights.

The family was forced to live apart after the courts ruled that there was a duty to protect their children from the consequences of their relationship.

Two of the couple’s children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.

But the Ethics Council dismissed that argument, on the basis that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children.

The Council said it based its recommendation on extensive research, in which it found many incestuous couples are forced to live in secret.

In one case, it found a woman was being blackmailed by her father and ex-husband, who threatened to depive her of access to her children unless she ended a new relationship with her half-brother.

Incest remains illegal in the UK and most European countries, although France abolished its incest laws under Napoleon I and there has been growing debate over the taboo in Germany.

Around two to four per cent of Germans have had “incestuous experiences”, according to an estimate by the Max Planck Institute.

But a spokeswoman for Angela Merkel’s ruling Christian Democrats indicated the government was unlikely to adopt the Ethics Council’s recommendations.

The abolition of the offense of incest between siblings would be the wrong signal,” said Elisabeth Winkelmeier-Becker, legal policy spokeswoman for the party’s group in parliament.

Eliminating the threat of punishment against incestuous acts within families would run counter to the protection of undisturbed development for children.

It’s not speculation that incestuous sexual relationships can lead to disability and abnormalities among children. Not just physical deformities, but mental deformities as well. Inbreeding was once the “in thing” among European royalty. Study up on the Hapsburg family. Aggressive inbreeding among this royal family led to a distinctive deformity of both the lips and jaws of their offspring, that still exist today. Inbreeding has effected the British Royals as well.

Included in the above article are links to these equally disturbing articles:

Marriage between uncle and niece is ruled legal by New York Court
29 Oct 2014

Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

10 Jul 2014

Father wanted over Australia’s worst incest case ‘hiding in UK’
30 Jun 2014

Switzerland considers repealing incest laws
13 Dec 2010

For those of you of the more libertarian bent, who are wondering why such a fuss, study up on the fall of ancient Greece and ancient Rome. Two civilizations that gave the world many great things and concepts, that crashed and burned because of their “if it feels good, do it” attitudes. These two great civilizations were destroyed by liberalism, of the sort America, and civilization, battles today.

Civilized societies have certain rules, norms, and taboos for a reason. These aren’t concepts that are willy-nilly and created on a whim. The need for these rules has been proven valid through thousands of years of human history.

America is the greatest civilization the world has ever known, but I’m afraid it is no match for the evil that is liberalism.

The slope is well greased, and we are about to slip down it at warp speed.

The American Experiment …. it was fun while it lasted.

12 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics

New Video Poll: Too Bold or Just Right?

By Isabel Matos

This is an important message that needs to be sent loud and clear: the Spanish Media is like the Lame Stream Media. Its bias is just not getting the attention it should. Language is not the barrier in programming we should worry about, agenda is. This video is captioned and narrated in Spanish and in English to get our conservative message out.  Vote (or add to) your opinion in the poll below.

7 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin, Uncategorized

As We Honor the Heroes of D-Day, Watch Ronald Reagan’s Iconic 1984 Speech at Point-du-Hoc

D-Day-4

By Gary P Jackson

June 6, 1944,

Allied Forces stormed the beaches of Normandy, France. It was the largest amphibious invasion ever attempted. Many brave men died on this day, but those who lived went on to liberate Europe from the evils of Nazism.

Many great movies have been made, memorializing these heroes, with The Longest Day being my personal favorite. Not many movies have John Wayne and Sir Richard Burton as bit players! Like the invasion itself, the movie was a major undertaking with a huge cast of players. Shot in black and white, it’s one of those, if you haven’t seen, you simply must.

One of the groups portrayed in the movie is the “Boys of Point-du-Hoc,” United States Army Rangers. These brave men scaled a sheer cliff, that was occupied, at the top, by Germans. It was an amazing act of bravery and determination, as they fought for every inch they moved up those cliffs.

In 1984, on the 40th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion, President Ronald Reagan was on the beaches of Normandy and gave a beautiful tribute to the “Boys of Point-du-Hoc.” 31 years later, this speech, reportedly crafted with Peggy Noonan, will still give you chills.

As we honor the heroes of D-Day, and honor men who literally freed the world from tyranny and oppression, lets listen to President Ronald Reagan honor them, as only he could:

President Reagan’s continued push for peace in the world, as he speaks to Soviet aggression, is a very noteworthy part of this speech as well. Ronald Reagan was an amazing champion of Liberty and Freedom. A true hero. Lord we miss him so.

* Video courtesy The Reagan Foundation at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

2 Comments

Filed under In The News, Ronald Reagan

Honoring the Brave Men and Women Who Gave Their Last Full Measure of Devotion For Us All

memorial-day-cemetary

By Gary P Jackson

Who are these brave men and women? What sort are they, that they stand on a hill and proclaim no one will harm you on their watch? These brave men and women who, when in battle, will give their last full measure of devotion so that we may live in comfort, never knowing the sting of battle. These heroes who charge the hill, put themselves in peril, so that others may live. These heroes that put themselves in harms way to come to the aid of their comrades in arms, willingly sacrificing themselves so that others may live.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends ~ John 15:13

We are blessed as a people, and a nation, to have the finest military and the best people the world has ever known. Brave men and women who volunteer to stand on that wall, and say to us: “No one will harm you on our watch.

Today we honor those who paid for our Liberty and continued Freedom with their lives, the most precious thing they had to offer America and her people.

Every day is a day to honor the brave men and women who serve in the United States Armed Forces. You should never miss an opportunity to thank a member of our military for their service and sacrifice. Today however, after a weekend of picnics, BBQs, and auto racing, is a day set aside to honor the dead. To honor those who died in service to you and I. To honor those who loved this country, and her people, so much.

Today is also a day to hold the families of the fallen in our hearts. The mothers and fathers, wifes and husbands, sons and daughters, as well as beloved friends, who will never see their loved ones again. Say a prayer for these brave souls as well.

Who are these brave men and women? They are the very best among us. May God bless their souls always and forever.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
Gettysburg, PA.

2 Comments

Filed under In The News

New SarahPAC Mailer Strongly Suggests Sarah Palin Will Mount A 2016 Presidential Bid

Sarah Palin at Reagan Ranch on Horseback

Governor Palin, horseback, at the Reagan Ranch in California

By Gary P Jackson

Many long time supporters of Governor Sarah Palin, those of us who have followed her career since early 2007, a year and a half before she was to be chosen as the Republican nominee for Vice President and became an international figure, have been wondering why the Governor has been silent now that several Republicans, including her good friend Ted Cruz, have announced they are officially in for 2016. Maybe, just maybe we have our answer.

Other than jabs at Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney in her Iowa speech, which prompted Rick Moran at PJ Media to say this ….

Palin sounds like a candidate to me. And she’s teeing off on Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, implying that their establishmentarianism is no better than the status quo — a potent theme that will resonate with the conservative base.
She also implies that Bush/Romney aren’t strong enough to get in the trenches with Hillary and the Clinton machine to duke it out. She certainly describes herself when she says she thinks the GOP candidate should be “considered a bit avante garde.” In fact, the way she describes the ideal candidate is like she’s looking in a mirror…

Palin may have other reasons for running, including denying Romney and Bush a cakewalk to the nomination. Her favorability ratings may be a liability, but her name recognition is far better than any other conservative candidate. Her entrance in the race would be a wild card that could peel off support from both establishment and conservative candidates alike.

I have one pick with Moran’s comments though. The last major poll that included Sarah Palin left her off as a potential candidate, but measured her favorables and unfavorables against a huge field of potential candidates. The 2014 poll had Palin’s favorability at 70%, among Republicans and Republican leaning independents. That’s UP from 67% in 2012 and considerably higher than anyone the pollster, Public Policy Polling, offered up as an actual candidate. Also, people shouldn’t dismiss lightly the fact that Governor Palin has been considered one of the Most Admired Women in the Word in Gallup’s annual survey since 2008, never being ranked lower than third on the list! Palin’s supposed unfavorability is more fantasy than fact!

Governor Palin has focused all of her energy, when it comes to 2016, on Hillary Clinton. She has hammered Hillary for not being able to multi-task, and use one phone for official government business, and one for personal use, going so far as to post a photo of herself, as Governor, holding her newborn son juxtaposed against Hillary’s claimed inability to figure it all out:

Sarah Palin Multi-tasking w Cellphones

In yet another scandal, Hillary was exposed as using her device for both personal and official State Department communications. A big no-no!

Earlier Governor Palin reminded Americans that while Hillary has erased her entire email history at the State Department, after using an illegal computer [something that would have anyone else already serving time in prison] Palin’s own e-mails were put under a microscope with the left wing Washington Post actually asking it’s readers to help scour through some 25,000 emails looking for the “juicy partsWaPo and it’s readers had hoped to find all kinds of incriminating evidence of SOMETHING, but instead found page after page of e-mails proving that not only was Governor Palin incredibly competent, but proved to be one of the hardest working public servants in the country. Something those of us who have followed Governor Plain for the better part of a decade already knew!

Sarah Palin email Truth

The Palin e-mails also put an end to the lie that she supported and took money for a “bridge to nowhere” when they revealed she wanted to give the money back, and earmark it for replacement of the I-35 Bridge that collapsed in Minnesota, killing and injuring many. Of course, as there was no legal way to do that, the money went to Alaska’s general fund. We have a link to many of Governor Palin’s official e-mails, as well as her outstanding record of accomplishments a Governor, here.

Several days ago Governor Palin posted this on Facebook:

America – ready for Hillary? Some of us are. Join us and begin here…

WATCH the Game-Changing New Video That Drops A Bomb On Hillary And Can Finish Her

A truth bomb of epic proportions …

She included a link to Western Journalism and the article America Rising Releases New Hillary Video: ‘Trustworthy?’

Governor Palin has consistently said she is “Ready for Hillary” and not in the way the former Secretary of State and world class criminal thinks!

Which brings us to a new mailer from SarahPAC that is making the rounds on Twitter. The letter is titled “I’m ready for Hillary. Are you? A second header proclaims “The First Shot: Clinton vs Palin” Along with the letter, is a copy of the front page of the Boston Herald, dated January 25, 2015 that screams MAKE WAY FOR SARAH and proclaims: GOP Strategists: A Palin ’16 bid is no joke

These mailers are sent to folks who support SarahPAC.

Here are a couple of the tweets, one showing the letter and the newspaper tear sheet, and one with just the newspaper:

The Boston Herald article is now hidden behind a pay-wall, but our friends at Conservatives4Palin archived it. Here’s the important part:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s announcement that she’s “seriously interested” in running for president in 2016 could shake up the GOP field, say strategists, who point to the former vice presidential hopeful’s strong base, fundraising ability and star power.

You’ve got to take her seriously because she can raise a lot of money, she has a big following and she has been through a national campaign, which is important to be competitive in a presidential primary,” Republican strategist Chris Brown told the Herald. “I think she really changes the field and she has the potential to hurt a lot of candidates — especially Tea Party conservatives.”

[…]

Former Alabama GOP Chairman Marty Connors said Palin “has built a career around being underestimated.
I would immediately put her in as a top- or mid-tier candidate if she decides to run,” Connors said.
[S]he has a built-in constituency and so she wouldn’t have to raise the money that some of the other candidates would and I think she’d be an exciting candidate that a lot of people would rally around.

As to raising money, I think Haley Barbour got it right when he said of Governor Palin a few years back: “She could raise enough money to burn a wet mule!” In case you don’t speak Mississippian, that means she can raise a hell of a lot of money! But I also agree with Connors, in that she is a known quantity and has not only a huge following, but the ability to attract the news media, who will follow her every move, like the second coming of Elvis!

Governor Palin’s media partner PassCodeCreative recently created a new video for SarahPAC Catch Me If You Can which reminds us about the big stir he bus trip caused a few years back!

Governor Palin and her family drove the media nuts, because she never gave them an itinerary, saying …. rightly so, her trip was about getting out and seeing America and talking to regular Americans, rather than a publicity stunt, like Hillary’s recent Scooby Do bus tour that was a complete and total flop! Governor Palin used this video to make fun of Hillary’s failed tour! And to poke the media again!

In the C4P article we mention above, Steve Flesher links to another Boston Herald article written around the same time by Adriana Cohen that explains the GOP needs a strong Conservative woman, if they intend to defeat Hillary Clinton [or Liz Warren, for that matter]

The GOP needs women on the ticket for many reasons, not least because it steals the Democratic Party’s thunder. They want to be the “first” at breaking cultural barriers and glass ceilings. With Hillary Clinton expected to be their front-runner in 2016, they’ll use her gender as a tactic to gin up support from their base — especially female voters.
I can already see Emily’s List pushing out emails nationwide saying, “Let’s make history by electing the first female president of the United States.”

Cohen goes on to say this about Hillary [and how Sarah is better]: [emphasis mine]

If you’re a female leader on the Democratic ticket, you’re a “hero” regardless of how many times you put your foot in your mouth, embarrass yourself or worse.

We haven’t forgotten Hillary Clinton saying that we should empathize with our enemies or that businesses and corporations don’t really create jobs. Both absurd statements that should disqualify any candidate — male or female — from any race, never mind the top slot.

But if you’re a female conservative? Watch out! Liberals will pounce and do everything they can to marginalize a conservative woman who runs for office no matter how educated, or talented, or accomplished she is. Liberals only “tolerate” others if they agree with them and follow their agenda.

[…]

The reality is Sarah Palin draws huge crowds at speaking engagements, has millions of social media followers and just as many supporters across the nation.

Hillary Clinton has been giving speeches to half-filled rooms.

Look, we have absolutely no idea what Governor Palin is going to do, but after she considered a 2012 run, for a long, long time, and then didn’t, causing a lot of disappointment among supporters, it’s hard to fathom she would do that again, especially as aggressive as this latest mailer is.

One of our longtime readers, Joy, made an interesting point a few days ago. If you remember, on September 3, 2011 Governor Palin made a powerful speech, to a massive crowd in Indianola, Iowa, which our Stacy Drake recorded.

While Governor Palin spoke of Liberty and Freedom, the main focus was crony capitalism.

Governor Palin has been going after in corruption in government for over 20 years, ever since her earliest days as the junior member of the Wasilla city council! She famously took down the entire Republican Party machine, in Alaska, which rivaled Chicago, and it’s thug politics, in it’s depths of corruption!

Just a few months after Governor Palin’s well received speech, Peter Schweizer’s brand new book: Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison was released.

The book caused a massive stir, as well as top billing on 60 Minutes. Congress passed a law [though later it was quietly neutered] banning lawmakers from insider trading. Both former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi [D-California] and current Speaker John Boehner [R-Ohio] have made tens of millions of dollars using secret insider information.

Joy noted that Peter’s new book: Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich which has caused the Clinton’s to loose their minds and their friends in the media a lot of sleepless nights trying to figure out how to protect Hill and Bill, just happens to be coming out at a time Governor Palin has been relentlessly hammering Hillary!

Peter’s new book, which is set for release May 5, 2015 is already a Number One Best Seller at Amazon!

I’m not sure Joy is off base here at all.

Most people know this, but Peter Schweizer served as Governor Palin’s foreign policy adviser after she left office and created SarahPAC. Peter literally wrote the books [plural] on President Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy, which Governor Palin had adopted as the basis for her own, adding new lessons learned.

What is interesting to me, is after serving under Palin, Peter has written exclusively about corruption in government. Clinton Cash will be his third Best Seller in a row on the subject.

Again, we have no idea what Governor Palin is up, but we have it from sources close to the family that her decision not to run in 2012 came down to strong opposition from her mother and her oldest son, Track.

That said, Governor Palin posted this on Facebook January 22, three days before the Boston Herald article was published:

Ha! Believe it or not I received this from… my mom!“:

Sarah Palin Hitchhiking

Take from that what you will!

Is it too early to say Palin-Cruz 2016?!? [or Palin-Jindal]

What exactly is “That woman” thinking about?

Sarah Palin in Western Wear Reflective Pose

26 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Is “America’s News Anchor” Rooting for A First Hispanic Republican President?

ramos cruz rubio

By Isabel Matos

No thanks, Jorge!!

We already have La Raza praising 11 House Republicans for their efforts, and Rep. Gutierrez making appearances with them. Although his comments reflect reality accurately, the title of this article should be: Ramos Resents Republican Presidential Hopefuls Rubio, Cruz who happen to be from Cuban Descent.

Breitbart reported: Speaking at Harvard’s Institute of Politics on Tuesday evening, Ramos said that “for the first time in history, there are two Hispanic candidates running for president.” “Regardless of the criticism Republicans receive from the mainstream press, “Republicans have been doing something right that they have two Hispanic candidates. And the Democrats don’t have a single Hispanic candidate for this election”.

He mentioned that if Cruz or Rubio is on the top of the 2016 ticket, it will be very interesting to see if Hispanic Democrats vote for a Latino candidate. Ramos noted that “the majority of Latinos vote for Democrats” and the “majority of Latinos are of Mexican origin” while Rubio and Cruz are both of Cuban descent. He said Latino voters will be faced with the question about whether they should vote for a Latino candidate just because he is Hispanic.

ramos harvard oh joy

Ramos is correct: the mainstream press is against Republicans; that includes, of course, his own. Let’s get out of the way the difference between the terms Hispanic and Latino for clarity’s sake, since they are used interchangeably often. Hispanics are from Spain or any of the Spanish speaking countries in Latin America. “Latino” is used as an abbreviated form of “Latino-Americano” (Latin-American), or someone coming from Latin America. Some statistics, too:

53 millionHispanics are the second fastest-growing ethnic group in the United States after Asian Americans. Since 1970, the Latino [should be Hispanic not Latino to avoid confusion] population has increased sixfold, from 9.6 million to 53 million as of 1/1/2012. Its is projected that its share of the U.S. population currently at 17% is expected to reach 29% or to 119 million by 2060, according to the latest projections from the U.S. Census Bureau (2014). This figure includes 38 million Hispanophone Americans, making the US home to the largest community of Spanish speakers outside of Mexico, surpassing Argentina, Colombia, and Spain within the last decade.

Now we get to the point (al punto) of this article: shifting the focus away from what we know about Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, to what we should know -if we didn’t already- about Ramos and Univision, since he brought all of this up:

1.  Jorge Ramos is the evening news anchor of Noticiero Univision. He was born in Mexico City 57 years ago. He first came to the United States on a one-year certificate program at UCLA Extension and has enjoyed a long career with Univision where he got a job with a work permit in an L.A. affiliate 30 years ago.

“My English was—I couldn’t even understand myself.”

Ramos hosts “Al Punto” a successful political Sunday talk show on Univision. He is part of digital magazine “Fusion” which targets a younger more liberal audience, covering topics he admits could never be aired on Univision. Ramos is very good at what he does; but his influence does not speak for all Hispanics.

Al_Punto_Hero_750x39011

“I went on Jon Stewart the other day and I told him,

‘I’m an immigrant; I need a lot of jobs!

CITIZENSHIP

Ramos constantly refers to himself as an immigrant. Maybe he does it for symbolic reasons. I was curious, so I did a little research and found this:

Al Punto“debuted on Univision on September 9, 2007, the same day as the first Spanish language U.S. Presidential Debate hosted by Univision.

From the transcript: UNIVISION NETWORK DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE PARTICIPANTS: SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY); SENATOR CHRISTOPHER DODD (D-CT); FORMER SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (DSC); FORMER SENATOR MIKE GRAVEL (D-AK); REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH); SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (D-IL); AND GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON (D-NM)
MODERATORS: JORGE RAMOS AND MARIA ELENA SALINAS, UNIVISION NETWORK ANCHORS LOCATION: UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, MIAMI, FLORIDA TIME: 7:04 PM EDT DATE: SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 9 2007

Three months later on December 9th, 2007, Univision hosted another forum where anchors, Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas, moderated the first U.S. Republican presidential debate in Spanish. Destino 2008 was held againg at the University of Miami, in Coral Gables, Florida. In February of 2008, Jorge Ramos asked questions to U.S. presidential candidates at the CNN Democratic debate at the University of Texas at Austin, in Austin, Texas:

CNN, Univision and the Texas Democratic Party jointly hosted a debate between Obama and Clinton on February 21 at 7:00 CST on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin. The debate was rebroadcast at 10:30 in Spanish. Questions focused heavily on illegal immigration and the economy, among other issues.

But Ramos revealed t.h.i.s. in an Interview on CSPAN on July 11 2010:

Excerpt: Brian Lamb: Why did you become an American citizen and what year did you do it?

Jorge Ramos: I did it in 2008. For me it was very important to participate fully in this country. It’s truly a wonderful country and my fight is that this country would treat other immigrants like me the same way they treated the millions of immigrants who came after me. It’s truly amazing, who could have thought that when John F. Kennedy was writing his book “A Nation of Immigrants,” it was 1958, I was born exactly that year and with those wonderful ideas and of course he was killed in ’63, but in ’65 with the immigration act of 1965 everything changed and because of that, because John F. Kennedy and because of “A Nation of Immigrants” I’m in this country, so I wanted to participate fully. I was very concerned about the war, I was concerned about my kids. Paola who’s 23 right now and Nicolas who’s 12, they were born here in this country and I wanted to – I wanted to be fully part of the United States. This has been a wonderful, generous, and magnificent country for me and I wanted to be part of it. 

It is not clear whether he became a citizen before or after he was allowed to ask questions of the U.S. presidential candidates at the CNN debate in February, 2008, as the views expressed above differ from his views in 2004 where he mentions he is not a U.S. citizen, despite his long years here, “in case I want to return to Mexico to run for office.” [ The interview on CSPAN is long but worth a listen)

That means he was not a citizen in 2007 which raises a lot of questions. Is he sincere or just a hypocrite? It sure seems arrogant to point the finger at U.S. citizens who want their laws enforced, when he may have become a citizen for expediency. [And he has chutzpah to moderate debates if he’s not one!]

jorge-ramos

RECOGNITION AND AWARDS

Ramos has received the Maria Moors Cabot award from the University of Columbia, he won 8 Emmy awards for excellence in journalism (including the first ever presented by the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences to honor leaders of Spanish Language Television). In 2002 he was honored with the ‘Ruben Salazar’ award by the National Council of La Raza for his positive portrayal of Latinos. In 2008 The Commonwealth Club of California recognized him with the Distinguished Citizen Award for being one of the outstanding individuals who embody the American Dream as an immigrant to the United States. Biography

He has said he can do what ever he damn well pleases (“lo que se me pegue la gana”) on his network, Univision. He’s like a pied piper for La Raza, and lord of a land within the land of plenty (ours) whose authority he defies and wants toppled. For that he is rewarded worldwide. Surprise. When questioning others he is sarcastic about the intentions of the undocumented’s: Do you (really) think we want to make the United States an extension of Mexico or claim it as part of our territory? That is Senor Ramos: America’s News Anchor. He’s not just a journalist. He takes his activism seriously. What’s not love if you’re a racist lib?

Jorge-Ramos-Rio-Grandejpg

Christiane Amanpour is mesmerized he swam in the Rio Grande.

[That picture reminds me of Putin’s pictures on a horse.] In her commentary for TIME where he made the cover of 2015’s 100 Most Influential People, she writes:

Ramos wrangles with President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner; he swims the Rio Grande; he says he asks every question as if it’s his last, determined to get an answer or go down trying. What happened to immigration reform? He knows he has a voice and is not afraid to use it. He shouts from every rooftop that Hispanic rights are human rights.

After decades on the cutting edge of the news agenda, Jorge Ramos, who grew up in Mexico, is waging the campaign of a lifetime, which is also a defining issue for America, the country he calls home.

If you haven’t gotten sick yet (I am), there’s more. Yes Ramos is cocky and full of himself, but I would be dishonest intellectually to deny or not admire the passion he has for what he does. In his speech to an audience of leaders he calls rebels [I actually like that term], he toasts the Dreamers, which he calls his real heroes.

“Because Congress has done nothing for a decade, I salute them for taking matters into their own hands and changing American immigration policy.”

The most influential leader of 2015 warns: You do not want to be their enemy, because they will get in your face. They are really American citizens, but don’t have a paper to prove it. He makes a reminder and gives a stern word of caution to politicians and presidential candidates who are thinking of deporting anyone: 

“Latinos will decide the next election and not vote for any candidate who wants to deport their father, their mother, your friends or your neighbors.” 

When I say I like the word rebel, I mean it in a good way (for our cause). And when I say I “admire” his passion, I am really expressing it in the same spirit he pointed out that the Republican Party is doing something right because two Hispanics are running for president. What I really wish is for his ego and immigration views to blast him into oblivion. Maybe in the end he will be seen for what he is: an elitist out for his career like the rest of them! Ramos says he hopes to grow his clout beyond the Latino community with “Fusion“:

“What I really like is that for the first time, I don’t need translation,” he says. “And without translation, there’s an immediate impact. And definitely the language of power is English.” [How romantic sarc>].

It is ironic given that Ramos does not believe that English should be the official language of this country. And also interesting to point out that in an article from a week ago, Fusion heralded Lindsey Graham as “the one GOP candidate who’s actually defending immigration reform”. Now on to Ramos’s show and network..

univision_logo-300x272

VIEWERSHIP AND RATINGS

2.  Univision is the largest network aimed at Hispanics in the U.S. It has one of the largest audience of Spanish-language television viewers in the world, according to Nielsen Media Research. NBC’s Telemundo is second. Both have studios, operate and produce in Miami but headquarters are in New York. In recent years, the network has reached viewership parity with the U.S.’s five major English language television networks; it often places a strong fifth, outranking The CW, with some fourth-place weekly placings; as of 2012, even first place rankings for individual programs over all five English networks, attributed to telenovelas. Who knew? So I did a little search on Sunday talk shows and found that although ratings vary weekly ‘Al Punto’ came in 4th or 5th overall and was mentioned even when its ratings were unavailable. I also looked for ratings comparing all five networks for evening news (cable/non cable, English/Spanish) but only found each one promoting its best week or month.

Noticiero Univision evening news reported in February 2012 its rank as:

No. 1 broadcast evening news program with twice as many viewers as the combined audience of “ABC World News Tonight,” “CBS Evening News” and “NBC Nightly News” among Adults 18-34 (195,000 vs. 86,000), Adults 18-49 (433,000 vs. 202,000) and Adults 25-54 (416,000 vs. 246,000). SOURCE Among Bilingual Hispanic Viewers: “Noticiero Univision” delivered 55% more Viewers 2+ than the combined audience of ABC, CBS and NBC’s evening newscasts (930,000 vs. 601,000). Source: The Nielsen Company.

eve news evenews JR_MES_NewSet_Desk_sm

Fox News (Univision’s competitor -my assumption not theirs- based on ratings I used) ranked as follows early in 2012:

In Primetime for January 2012, FNC averaged 1,942,000 viewers, an increase of 78% since January 2002 when the network averaged 1,091,000. In fact, the Primetime ratings FNC achieved in 2002 after becoming number one eclipse what CNN and MSNBC are currently averaging today in 2012 (841,000 and 801,000 viewers respectively).  Additionally, FNC’s current 2012-to-date Primetime average beat CNN and MSNBC combined. Fox News’s median age is 65+ but no figures reflect that age group. Viewers 25-54 have fallen but overall prime time audience went up to 2.02 in 2012 from 1.89 million in 2009. The O’Reilly Factor was the top show for Fox (and cable news as a whole), averaging 2.361M total viewers and 365K in the demo at 8 p.m. The Kelly File, which has been beating Bill O’Reilly’s show in the 9 p.m. slot on occasion, came in second overall, averaging 1.998M total viewers and 332K total. Read more here or here.

sunday-shows_304

SUNDAY TALK SHOWS

In February 2012, Univision, its Sunday morning public affairs program:

Al Punto” delivered two times more Adults 18-49 (186,000 vs. 91,000) than the combined audience of the English-language broadcast programs (ABC’s “This Week,” CBS’“Face The Nation,” NBC “Meet The Press” and “FOX News Sunday.”)

Rick Kissell Senior Editor of “Fox News Sunday” reported its telecast on July 28, 2014 in the DC market:

averaged 107,000 viewers on WTTG-5 — the second largest audience ever in the nation’s capital, behind only the 132,000 when Chris Wallace interviewed Sarah Palin in 2010 (Interview parts 1, 23 below)

first sunday appearance

“Fox News Sundays” finished well ahead of NBC’s “Meet the Press” on WRC-4 (73,000), ABC’s “This Week” on WJLA-7 (65,000), CBS’ “Face the Nation” on WUSA-9 (59,000) and Univision’s “Al Punto” on WFDC-14 (57,000). It also led in households (64,000 to 53,000 for “Meet the Press”). In key news demo of adults 25-54, it led in D.C. with 41,000, followed by “This Week” (36,000), “Meet the Press” (33,000), “Al Punto” (32,000) and “Face the Nation” (29,000).

Nick Massella reported NBC’s Ratings in the DC Market  in October , 2014 as follows:

“Meet” secured 65,000 total viewers followed by “FOX News Sunday” with 40,000 in the DC market. In terms of households, NBC also led with 55,000 followed by FOX with 34,000. In the A25-54 demo, FOX took first with 12,000 viewers followed by NBC with 9,000, CBS’s “Face the Nation” with 4,000, and ABC’s “This Week” considered a scratch. * FishbowlDC did not have access to ratings for Univision’s “Al Punto.”

Bob Schieffer’s “Face the Nation”‘s report included “Al Punto” in their 2014 article: “Meet the Press Struggles in the Ratings …” :

“Face the Nation,” hosted by Bob Schieffer, the grandfatherly 77-year-old newsman, not only attracts the largest overall audience (a weekly average of 3.35 million during the first three months of 2014, 5 percent more than “This Week,” 8 percent more than “MTP” and 61 percent more than “Fox News Sunday”) but the largest audience among the coveted 25-to-54 set, too.

Collectively, about 9.6 million people watched the three networks each week during the first three months of this year, about the same number that watched Russert in 2005. This doesn’t count the audience for innumerable Sunday-morning competitors, from Fox News Sunday (hosted by former “Meet the Press” moderator Chris Wallace) to “Al Punto” on Univision.  (2015 cable news ratings here) 

laura big

EXACTLY.

Many politicians come to kiss Ramos’s hand (I had to steal that) on “Al Punto”. It is embarrassing to witness, which is why I translated this visit where Rep. Diaz-Balart is justifying our party’s actions to Ramos, revealing John Boehner’s intentions on amnesty. It is cordial but contentious as always (it gets old but he is tireless). He grills the Republican, slaps him around, throws in a racist accusation or two and dangles the 11 million-potential-voter-carrot they can’t ignore. Gutierrez, of course, does not get the same treatment. The clip is a gem, proving the GOPe does not want to answer to us. If Republicans want to really prove how compassionate they are, they would take a hard look at and explain how they can justify amnesty when our families and children will be hurt by it. Ramos said this about the next election and Republicans:

1) It is now accepted fact that Hispanic voters were integral to delivering Barack Obama’s presidency, and the road to D.C. has been permanently rerouted.

2) An immigration bill—which Ramos called “a prerequisite” for Latinos to even consider voting Republican—passed the Democratic Senate, but there is close to no hope in the Republican-­controlled House, at least at present. “They don’t get it,” he says. Ramos’s theory is that the Republican nominee in 2016 will simply say of the do-nothing Congress, “They were wrong,” and then offer an immigration proposal of his own. May 5, 2014 New York Magazine.

What do we call it.. a threat? blackmail? ultimatum? shakedown or all of the above? There are so many appearances to choose from, but in every interview, Ramos must come across as the one who cares more than our side which is less passionate and caring about the plight of illegals. If you disagree with any of the points he makes, you have to defend not being anti-immigrant or anti-Hispanic. Marco Rubio’s views are far from being anti-immigrant. (We hate them!) He has made it clear that immigration reform is inevitable, that he is against deportations and will not disrupt DACA (only legislation that is okay before securing the border according to Conant his adviser) but that’s not enough for the true extremists. Cruz is for a bipartisan solution to Immigration reform, which leaves me feeling a little queasy. Does he mean DC-type bipartisanship or a unanimous decision and consensus where D’s and R’s are representing the American people. In any case it is all futile effort because Ramos doesn’t care about them, the law or the fact that the GOPe is shortchanging us on immigration. He does extract their true colors, though, in the process.

Dear Jorge (hor-hey),

Rubio is for Amnesty, DACA and Dreamers!

We hate that as much as you resent it. Why don’t you support  him?

Bilingual and legal

Ingraham knows why they flock to Ramos: to try to make inroads into the Hispanic vote, but asks what the difference between him and Graham is. [Why don’t you ask Jorge, Laura?!]

We have two Hispanics running for president because they ran on a strong message which generated grassroots excitement, and which translated into votes. One lied about it, the other a little more trustworthy but it remains to be seen. Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with these presidential hopefuls should have nothing to do with their ethnicity, but character. The truth is, Ramos wishes the hero of this episode in history was a Hispanic Democrat, not a Hispanic Republican, and a Mexican, not a Cuban-American. At the end of this clip he pleads with Bill Richardson to run in 2016. Below is an example of this bias. It is short, in Spanish with English subtitles:

GOTCHA!

Ramos reminds Rubio above that millions of “Hispanics” want change (referring to millions of Mexican illegals, of course). Like all advocates for amnesty, (see Linda Vega) ‘undocumented’ is key. Rubio’s reply reflects what many in the community I live in believe: that immigration is a touchy, sensitive matter, a humanitarian, not political issue. (The same is probably true in other states where you don’t want to offend people you already know.) No matter what he says, though, he will be the bad guy. Univision will never cover Benghazi, Obama’s scandals or news that is not relevant to “Hispanics” (one particular sector..) Its bias (subtle or not) affects millions of bilinguals (55% prefer Noticiero Unvision to our new show), and what happens at home here and with neighbors is microcosmic of what happened before fair and balanced came around, or social media now. There are no competitors to challenge or enlighten viewers on other points of view. Certainly politicians can’t do so in just one sitting.

Rubio’s answer was cut off in the sub-titled clip, so I’m providing what was said in the full interview in Spanish to illustrate Ramos’s disdain for Rubio:

  • 1 Family is not off the table. When Rubio was 16 his brother-in-law was sentenced to 25 years for drug trafficking (He was released in 2000 for good behavior). Rubio explains in his book American Son that it was a very difficult time for the family and scolds Ramos and Univision for making it the story front and center on the news when it had nothing to with him. It was just to smear Rubio. Ramos (playing dumb) insisted if he was going to run as VP in 2012 this information should be known. Rubio says they could have called him, not his sister, and that it was public record anyway; he called it a black eye for the network, but Ramos doesn’t stop there. He asks Rubio if he got money from his brother-in-law or was influenced in any way by him during his campaign. In no way, Rubio replied.
  • 2 Ramos objects to ENGLISH as the official language of this country. If you speak it at home, he says, why should it be official? He says millions of voters could be affected by the police stopping or discriminating against anyone with an accent in Spanish. There are other negative consequences, he says, like being fired from jobs for speaking Spanish. It is discriminatory. Rubio: No one gets stopped for having an accent. In Florida English is the official language. It doesn’t stop you from speaking Spanish at home.
  • 3 You’re Anti-Immigrant for not agreeing with me 100%. Ramos points to books on Rubio’s bookcase: He says Bush, Reagan, even McCain, a presidential candidate, were all for the legalization of illegals. Why aren’t you like them? Rubio: I am my own person and I base my views on what is happening in the country today. Ramos: People approach me saying he [Rubio] “does not defend us”. He says they want to see Rubio come out and defend them, the undocumented. Rubio: That’s not true. I defend.. Ramos: You could be president one day and change that. Rubio: Unfortunately, a lot of people make promises knowing they cannot keep. I say what I see can be done. Ramos: President Obama’s campaign manager told Univision it would be an insult to the Hispanic immigrant community if you [Republicans] had won the election in 2012 because your position is anti-Hispanic. Mitt Romney, for example, was for self-deportation. Rubio: Self-deportation means they made a decision to go back as a consequence of things getting difficult in Obama’s economy. I don’t know of anyone having positions that are ant-immigrant or anti-Hispanic. RAMOS: The perception is, you could be. RUBIO: Many on the left would say that. RAMOS: You could be powerful as the first Hispanic President of the U.S. or most powerful Hispanic, but your positions are 1) You are for the Arizona Law which persecutes immigrants, 2) you are against the Dream Act, and 3) you want English to be the official language. RUBIO: 1) The Arizona law is not meant for the entire nation but I support it because states have rights which I respect. 2) I do want to help the undocumented kids here and 3) English should be the official language like it is in Florida. 

If you think I’m defending Rubio you’ve missed the point of this entire article.

Rubio has deserved all he got because of 2013. Like millions, I was angry he betrayed good Tea Party conservatives who voted for him thinking he was in their corner. He should have known better than to mess with immigration extremists, too. If there was any lesson to be learned, it is to speak clearly. I will never forget or condone his actions; however, SarahPac has urged us to support Cruz, Paul and Rubio from attacks from the left.  She is right. And Ramos and Univision are part of those attacks.

ted rand and marco

RAMOS CALLS TED CRUZ AND HIS DAD DREAMERS

First, if Ramos had a one-year certificate to be in the United States because of Mexican censorship. His permit to work here must have had an expiration date. I don’t really care at this point if he overstayed a visa or not. Let’s assume he did every legally. It just makes me wonder why someone would be so adamantly AGAINST immigration law enforcement if he wasn’t illegal himself.

As a Cuban-American, I can say Ramos and those who lead “the” march to illegality resent our legality. He can’t help it. Ramos points out to Rubio that his grandfather and to Ted Cruz that his father were just like dreamers, simply asking for documentation. In Rubio’s case, it could not be compared because there was no law that existed that his grandfather was breaking in the first place. And Ted Cruz fends off the attack by explicitly saying his father was legal. Ramos ignores both explanations.

Even though he grilled Obama a while ago for not keeping his promise, Ramos says in this interview with pinhead OReilly: that Obama “evolved” on the legality of immigration action. Puleez. Obama said repeatedly he didn’t have the legal power to pass it, but Ramos and other activists are joyful that it was, and are emboldened by the move. They are trying not to sound ungrateful, but can’t hold back as this is just the start. They want all illegals here from every country amnestied, not just theirs. It will never end. By the way, Ramos says in English at the 3:33 (it’s such a bad habit!) that he is an immigrant.
I am being long-winded about this, but I am passionate about the subject. I recommend the tape below which illustrates what arguments we can use against amnesty. It is not by a politician but an anti-amnesty activist with no strings attached. He reminds me of Heather MacDonald: polite, smart and reasonable.In English:

So why should we care about what Ramos thinks? Most Americans are against it! Because…

Ramos may turn out to be one of the most influential journalists going into the 2016 presidential election.

That is scary. And I’m Hispanic! With much less on his resume he moderated at least three presidential debates. I’m happy to report, though, that “sour grapes” Ramos and his network have pounced on the fact that Univision was excluded from the Republican presidential debates. FYI, Democratic pollster Fernand Amandi said:

The GOP needs Univision more than Univision needs the GOP,”

“For a party looking to be competitive nationally again, they can’t risk alienating the premier outlet that caters to the fastest-growing part of the electorate.”

Univision spokesperson Jose Zamora said,

“There is a very simple political reality—Hispanics will decide the 2016 Presidential election. No one can match Univision’s reach and ability to inform, provide access and empower Hispanic America. Anyone who wants to reach and engage Hispanics will have to do it through Univision..

Univision lead anchor Jorge Ramos said that both parties:

“have to make sure that their debates don’t look like the 2015 Oscar nominations,” referring to the lack of diversity among the Academy’s nominees.

gop debate

THE DEBATES

RNC’s schedule is not much more encouraging as none of the anchors representing the networks are RAMOS in the reverse.

Our news outlets are at fault for not doing their job where amnesty is concerned. Millions complain about it, but none in power have had the will, drive or support to do anything about it consistently. Sarah Palin called for impeachment last year, but it fell on deaf ears across DC.  It would be great if we had a powerful news anchor 24/7 defending America’s sovereignty like our nemesis on Univision does to violate it. What a dream to hear candidates answer to us accepting five non-negotiable’s in this war against amnesty:

  • Yes, English is our official language.
  • A pathway to citizenship really means amnesty.
  • I will not support Obama’s executive actions, DACA or DAPA.
  • Illegals are not ‘undocumented’ and dreamers are not the same as legal immigrants seeking documentation.
  • We will spend time debating deportation for lawbreakers for not just criminals, instead of how to make citizenship happen.
  • Americans have the right to secure their border first, and not be accused of being anti-immigrant or anti-Hispanic because of it.
  • Democrats are better at this, so we have to fight together to beat them on this and appeal to legal citizens and American voters affected by it.

dobbs

Ingraham’s stance on amnesty has been effective in some races. She could be a good anchor, but her negatives would be she is unreliable politically: 1) she said she wasn’t going to get into presidential politics only state and local, but within 24 hours she was commenting on the national race, and 2) she is too quick and eager to back establishment candidates when push comes to shove. Chris McDaniel could be thrown into the mix just to spook the Rinos. Stuart Varney also came to mind (but I’m not sure what his stance on immigration is). We should start thinking about this and demand that the RNC providing moderators who will ask and demand clear answers, putting Priebus, our quasi-conservative media and any GOPe on notice that anyone who is for amnesty but wants to appear as they are not must take a hike!

Sarah Palin electrified millions when she dismissed Washington reporters as elitists in her VP acceptance speech, something we had never heard anyone say in politics. It was just one of the many moments that were part of that electrifying night. Who can forget those 25 seconds (:45 – 1:11)? (Schieffer’s reaction was priceless):

One month later Palin made the point to talk directly to the American without the filter of the media. We loved it. And still do!

Eight years later she is still talking to not at us, like the nation’s CEO, almost daily on her own online channel. Just today she addressed illegal immigration (again):

sarah on immigration

My advice to candidates:

TALK TO US DIRECTLY!

We cannot have a flippant attitude about immigration. It has to be done with a sense of urgency which the above presidential hopeful has. We cannot accept candidates wanting or trying to be the Candy Man to pushy Dreamers and/or innocent children who’ve been brainwashed from day one that it’s okay to break the law. Laws are our contract between government and its people and in their quest for power,

our lawmakers have become lawbreakers in helping push this agenda.

Ramos may be one of the Most Influential Latino Leaders in the world, but he is helping millions break our laws. You will get no apology from me for being for deportations, defending English as our official language, or militarizing the border. He says he never mentions his views on the evening news but Ramos gives his opinion everywhere else. When he asks if Mexicans would vote for a candidate just because they spoke Spanish, it is a legitimate question. If we had a black Republican candidate, would blacks turn out the vote for him? Not necessarily. In that regard Rubio and Cruz are wise not to run as Hispanics but on message, and that is what we vet them on, but I’m still calling Ramos out on his arrogance, racism and b.s. (making such a fuss over ethnicity) and sending this clear note to our own:

Dear Republican candidates,

We are the ones you should worry about. If you pander for illegal votes, you will lose our trust and our vote.

Your Constituents

No matter what intentions you as Republicans may have, or what your plans to reform immigration are, the majority of Latinos and/or Hispanics (camouflage for Mexican) do not and never really will sympathize with Republicans (like Ramos suggests).  So why waste time on the 11 million illegal ‘birds in the bush’, when we have about 40 million legals in the hand willing to sacrifice for and abide by this country’s laws. We should be attracting Hispanics for the right reasons, not background.

The left knows no bounds on personal attacks, respect for laws or life, so it is up to us to continue pushing backing and to build an apparatus that will challenge the invasion (yes, it is an invasion and no, we’re not racists for saying so.) Tenacity and drive are key. We can start by reacting with caution to stories coming from this Spanish media because it is just like our liberal media.  We have to act like Team R (relentless) vs. Team D (derelicts), regardless of party affiliation. For our sovereignty.

It remains to be seen whether Republicans will win in 2016 by courting the illegal vote. It did not help Reagan (or Americans) for him to pass amnesty in the long run. Democrats ended up not securing the border like they had promised in exchange for the 3 million amnestied. That’s what you get when you deal with Democrats.

Is Rubio a racist? No.

Is he godless? No.

Has he always wanted to pass immigration reform? Yes.

Is it a screwed up political agenda? Yes.

Is Jorge Ramos all of the above? Yes.

But immigration reform is no inevitable. We just have to fight relentlessly against it. Ramos is not just a journalist and he is not just a liberal. He represents the sleeping giant that is the future of American politics. That future is NOW.

And the power is OURS to relinquish.

###

100 most edited

Basta! Enough. It is time for our version of who should be America’s Most Influential Leader 2016:

TIMELESS

If none of the above has convinced you that presidential contenders should avoid Univision like the plague,  maybe this will:

The billionaire Univision owner whose company is promoting Hillary Clinton on Spanish-language media platforms is a Clinton friend who said that seeing Clinton in the White House is his “big dream” and that “Hillary is Obama’s natural successor.”

The partnership raises serious questions about the role independent media networks can play in preparing Clinton for a presidential run.

“Too Small to Fail,” a joint initiative of the childhood development research group Next Generation and the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, launched in June 2013 with the stated aim of promoting research about brain development, nutrition, and health for children aged 0 to 5. Now the project, and its spokesperson Hillary Clinton, will get a lot of face time on the largest Spanish language media network in the United States. http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/17/days-after-univision-announces-clinton-partnership-network-owner-says-hillary-presidency-his-dream/

Leave a comment

Filed under In The News, Politics, Uncategorized

Sarah Palin: Human-Caused Global Warming? What a racket!

climate-disruption

By Gary P Jackson

Yesterday was “Earth Day” and [not coincidentally] Communist terror leader Vladimir Lenin’s birthday. We spent the day talking about the scam of “global warming” and quoting actual conservationists and climate experts, who debunk the notion and rightly understand the “climate change” movement has more to with their hero, birthday boy Lenin, and his insane philosophy, than actual science.

There was another birthday this week. A one we are more than happy to celebrate: Trig Palin’s! [4/21] Governor Palin took to Facebook to post some photos of her son enjoying the day [and the fresh snow!] as well as to blast the fascist thugs who are pushing the global warming scam:

Celebrating the boys’ birthdays – in new snow on 4/20! Trig takes another lap on his restored ’88 Élan (thank you, Garret and Ellie!) while enjoying this “climate change” (also known as “seasons“).

100% Human-Caused Global Warming? What a racket. A money-making, politically-driven tool that ignores history to enable control freaks’ mandates that fundamentally transform your lifestyle and stall American progress.

Well, happy birthday, sons; may you and your generation never cave to Al Gore and his liberal idiotic ilk as elitists pretend to play God, claiming they control Mother Nature. They can’t predict this afternoon’s weather but foolishly demand trust in their supernatural power to predict it 5000 years from now. Stay strong, boys! We need men like you to un-do what’s been done to our country under liberal control. Meanwhile, enjoy the snow!

– Sarah Palin

Trig Palin Birthday 2015-1

Trig Palin Birthday 2015-God Bless America

Trig Palin Birthday 2015-2

Trig Palin Birthday 2015-3

3 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Unbelievable: Obama’s EPA Chief, Gina McCarthy, Can’t Answer Basic Climate Questions

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy

By Gary P Jackson

Imagine that, the head of the all powerful, heavy handed agency that is attempting to control your every minute action in the name of stopping “climate change” can’t even answer the most basic questions about the environment. Questions that anyone [my age] who made it past grade school could answer!

From Investors Business Daily:

Climate Change: Gina McCarthy, head of the EPA, can’t answer basic questions about global temperatures, climate models or numbers of hurricanes. She didn’t know being a global warming zealot requires knowledge of math.

If the science of climate change was “settled,” you’d think one of the generals in the war on global warming would have memorized the numbers that point to our planetary doom from a menace the administration says is a greater threat than terrorism.

But McCarthy was asked some pretty simple questions Wednesday at a Senate hearing Wednesday on her request for $8.6 billion to help fight the claimed imminent doom of climate change, and her performance didn’t help her case.

One of the questions involved droughts and the claim that their frequency has increased due to warming that is said to be caused by mankind’s increased production of greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, the basis for all life on Earth but judged by the EPA to be a pollutant.

Let me ask you this,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., inquired of McCarthy. “There was an article from Mr. (Bjorn) Lomborg … from the Copenhagen Institute. He says, along with Dr. (Roger) Pielke from Colorado, that we’ve had fewer droughts in recent years. Do you dispute that?

The seemingly clueless McCarthy pathetically responded that she didn’t “know in what context he’s making statements like that.” Context? Truth has its own context, and the inconvenient truth that McCarthy wasn’t aware of, or didn’t want to face, is that Pielke and Lomborg are right.

Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado, told the Senate environment and public works subcommittee in July 2013 that droughts have “for the most part become shorter, less frequent and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century.” Globally, he said, “there has been little change in drought over the last 60 years.

Sessions also asked McCarthy if we’ve had more or fewer hurricanes in the last decade. It was another question she said she couldn’t answer because “it’s a very complicated issue.” Well, no, not unless basic math is a complicated issue. Sessions noted that we have in fact gone nearly a decade without a Category 3 storm or higher making landfall in the U.S.

The last hurricane to hit America as a Category 3 or higher was Wilma, which struck Florida on Oct. 24, 2005. Superstorm Sandy had wind speeds barely reaching Category 1 status when it slammed into New Jersey in 2012 and wreaked havoc.

Sessions inquired of the global temperatures that have virtually flatlined for two decades:

Would you acknowledge that over the last 18 years, that the increase in temperatures has been very little, matter of fact 90% below most of the environmental models that showed how fast temperature would increase?

McCarthy replied that she didn’t know “what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to.”

Sessions called her ignorance and inability to outline the danger we supposedly face from climate change, as well as her failure to justify the EPA’s funding request, a “stunning development.” So do we.

The science is indeed settled, but not the way climate zealots think. McCarthy’s lack of knowledge and facts on her side only underscores the fact we have wasted billions on fighting a nonexistent threat and shackled our economy with lower growth and higher job loss.

Ignorance and stupidity is the hallmark of liberalism, the democrat party, and the corrupt and evil Obama regime. It should come as no surprise that, like every other member of Obama’s vile, Anti-American, anti-human regime, Gina McCarthy is criminally incompetent and ignorant!

These people belong in prison for all of the pain and suffering they have cause the human race.

2 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics