Category Archives: Greens

If the right of self-protection means carrying a gun – so be it

 

Editorial

If women are left defenceless then they need self-protection. Pepper sprays, electric prods or handguns have been  used in the United States for decades with very few reports of misuse. Heavy penalties apply if misused.

Many centuries of Common law gives us the right of self-defence, but the corporate political parties have denied honest citizens to use force against force.

The political parties claim they own our children and they will protect them and naturally us the parents.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Television news yesterday was awash with the funeral of the young girl, Aiiwa Maasarwe murdered in Melbourne by a young indigenous man. Could she have survived if she had some means of self-protection?

Probably because the conditions for self-carry are to have undertaken a rigid firearms handling course before getting a licence, but if it is widely known that women legally have a means of self-protection, such as a gun or mace then the attack most likely would not have occurred.

How many more women have to be murdered before the political party quislings take action?

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Animals Australia bribes to secure fake footage

KAP Leader and Federal Member for Kennedy Bob Katter is furious yet another ‘greenie’ animal activist group has been caught offering payments to live export workers to capture footage of animals in a ‘bad light’, saying they are trying to institutionalise antagonism at the expense of the animals.

It is reported that the Department of Agriculture has begun an official investigation on Animals Australia over the allegations of offering workers as much as three months’ worth of wages in exchange for obtaining distressing footage.

Animals Australia terrorist leader, Lyn White

“These people are trying to institutionalise antagonism; you have got to call this for what it is. We are investigating reports where people have created a horror story so they can get paid by the ‘greenies’ – and we’ve got two cases now with a reasonable chance of proving this,” Mr Katter said.

“Once again the Government can license these people to go on the boats and that person is there to ensure sanitary and reasonable conditions on these boats.

“99% of them are excellent 99% of the time, but they keep searching for the 1%.

“At the end of the day the only ‘green’ most greenies adore is the colour of the $100 bill, and in this instance, it’s at the expense of the animals’ welfare,” Mr Katter said.

Farm terrorists cause havoc inciting invasion and sabotage of private property

Home-grown farm terrorists have produced a website map of nearly every Australian farming property ostensibly to incite farm invasions and terrorist activities in a campaign to shut down agriculture in all regional areas.

https://www.farmonline.com.au/story/5861952/family-farms-targeted-by-animal-activists-name-and-shame-campaign/

Ringleaders include Chris Delforce of Aussie Maps, Lyn White, Animals Australia, Mimi Bekhechi, PETA Campaigns Advisor.

Aussie Maps farm terrorist leader Chris Deforce

Animals Australia animal terrorist leader, Lyn White

Peta-Mimi-Bekhechi, PETA farm terrorist organiser

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These anarchists have thousands of dim-witted followers who finance the sabotage of piggeries, feedlots, poultry farms, grazing properties, abattoirs, livestock transport, horse races, rodeos, camp drafts and pony clubs.

Notably all three ringleaders and most of their followers are vegans and due to their diet, have acute trace element deficiencies which usually leave the victim with mental issues often causing severe schizophrenia and delusionary behaviour.

The federal Agriculture Minister David Littleproud has slammed the online map and jumped on the farm invasions calling for each group’s charity status to be withdrawn, in an effort to starve the groups of funds.

Farmers on social media have demanded the terrorists to be prosecuted under federal terrorism laws for attempting to destroy or contaminate public food supplies.

Meanwhile investigators have discovered Animals Australia has again been caught paying bribes to animal workers to deliberately harm animals at abattoirs or on board livestock ships while being filmed.

The fake footage is then supplied to the conspiratorial ABC for viewing by a gullible public.

The Greens Party should be included in any prosecutions of the terrorists for giving the groups political support.

Cairns News supports the prosecution of these farm terrorists under counter-terrorism laws. Farmers are urged to make a complaint to the Federal Police or ring the NATIONAL SECURITY HOTLINE 1800 123 400

The Attorney General’s website states:

‘It is an offence to counsel, promote, encourage or urge the doing of a terrorist act or the commission of a terrorism offence where the person intentionally engages in the conduct reckless as to whether another person will engage in a terrorist act or commit a terrorism offence.

If found guilty of advocating terrorism, a person could face up to five years imprisonment.’

 

Australia in boots and all with climate racketeers at Poland conference

Liberal and Labor supported 46 emissaries now back home to spread climate scare stories while the absent US throws a party to celebrate fossil fuels

December 16, 2018

Negotiators from around the world struck an eleventh-hour deal Saturday, laying out rules to implement the Paris Agreement and keep the landmark 2015 climate accord intact.

But it wasn’t easy.

The two-week, drawn-out fight that included a rehashing of old battles and the introduction of new ones stretched late into the night here at the COP 24 UN climate conference in Katowice, Poland. The pitched battle hints at challenges to come in the global fight against climate change as the new world order continue to face a wave of political pressure that has put a strain on international cooperation.

15 December 2018, Poland, Katowice:  Australia sent 46 bureaucrats agreeing to shut down the remnants of domestic industry.  President Michal Kurtyka (M) of the UN Climate Change Conference COP24, and other participants of the climate summit are pleased about the decision of the compromise at the world climate summit. The aim of the agreement is to limit global warming to well below two degrees. Photo: Monika Skolimowska/dpa-Zentralbild/dpa (Photo by Monika Skolimowska/picture alliance via Getty Images)

“It has been a long road,” said Polish Energy State Secretary Michał Kurtyka, who served as President of the conference. “This deal hangs in fragile balance, we will all have to give in order to gain.

The issues on the table in Katowice were largely technical questions centering on accounting, finance and seemingly arcane word choices that signal how aggressively countries will cut their emissions. But geopolitics never lurked far from the surface, and the urgency of climate change never proved great enough to keep the politics from bubbling up and disrupting proceedings.

“People are pulling away at the edges of the multilateral system and you wonder whether or not it’s going to unravel further,” said Rachel Kyte, who headed the World Bank’s climate-change program and who now leads Sustainable Energy for All, before the final decision. “Is the beginning of something bigger? How do we cope with it?”

The potential for disruption was clear from the beginning. The U.S., the world’s biggest economy and second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, promised to exit the Paris Agreement last year under President Trump’s direction. This left a void in leadership even as the U.S. officially remains in the talks until it’s eligible to withdraw in 2020. That void opened the door for others to rebel, particularly in places where climate change does not jive with the priorities of populist or authoritarian governments.

In a highly-publicized affair, the U.S. held an event promoting fossil fuels, during which a White House official argued that the country was injecting a dose of “reality” in the face of “alarmism” around climate change. The event won the support of Australia, whose ambassador for the environment joined the panel. And a senior administration official said that other countries had conveyed that they appreciate the U.S. perspective even if they don’t feel comfortable stating so publicly. “They don’t talk about it as much,” said a senior administration official. But, “there’s an appreciation for the realism.”

 

In another conflict, Brazil faced off against the rest of the world when it threatened to reject any deal because of language that would fix an accounting loophole that gives the country double credit for preserving forests in the Amazon. The rest of world protested, but Brazil refused to budge and in the final hours negotiators decided to punt the issue to a future conference.

One of the biggest clamors of the conference came as four oil producing countries, including the U.S, Russia and Saudi Arabia, questioned the validity of climate science and refused to recognize the legitimacy of a report from the IPCC, the UN’s climate science body, showing the effects of climate change if temperatures rise more than 1.5°C.

Changing geopolitics even hit in places where governments care deeply about the threat of climate change. The wave of populism in the European Union fractured the block, weakening its negotiating position. Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a longtime climate negotiations expert, cited political change in Italy, the ongoing Brexit fiasco and the weak positions of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emanuel Macron as contributing to the E.U.’s struggle to wrangle other countries. “There’s always some of these clashes, but it’s more acute here,” he says.

And then there’s the U.S. relationship with China, which is in disarray over ongoing trade issues. The two countries, while often at odds in previous negotiations, often served as mediators between developing and developed countries and helped broker key deals. “There was a capacity to be a convener, each of us,” says Todd Stern, who served as the chief U.S. negotiator under Obama, of the U.S. and China. “That’s not available right now.”

All of these disruptions helped push the talks long into overtime, with a mix of yawns and applause when Kurtyka finally called the conference to an end more than a day later than originally scheduled. The deal that resulted came as a relief: the multilateral approach to fighting climate change will live to see another day.

At the same time, the new agreement left much to be desired from nearly all parties. “I trust that whenever you found dissatisfaction in one part of the text, it was balanced with satisfaction in another,” said Kurtyka.

Perhaps more importantly, all but the most out-of-touch acknowledged that the deal leaves much work to be done if the world actually hopes to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C, a level that the new IPCC report shows could wipe some countries off the map and cause widespread devastation across the planet.

“Carbon emissions keep rising and rising,” Mohamed Nasheed, former president of the Maldives, told reporters before the deal was finalized. “All we seem to be doing is talking and talking and talking.”

As countries continue to wind through the difficult international negotiation process, the obvious answer to make up for the gap caused by political disruption lies outside of the political system. Indeed, some local governments, businesses and apolitical multilateral organizations are already trying to take charge.

For most of the two decades that the U.N. has held these meetings, talk has focused on how to make action on climate change happen at a nebulous point in the future. Now, in large part thanks to the Paris Agreement, that action has already begun. And, while the international system is doomed to be defined by the least common denominator, many cities, states and businesses have stepped up to the challenge. In the months leading up to this conference, the World Bank committed $200 billion in climate investments, a slew of businesses lobbied for market solutions to climate change and alliances of sub-national governments in Japan, Argentina and Mexico joined the U.S. in making commitments to fill the gap in their national governments’ efforts.

“To combat climate change we need much much more than government,” says Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation and a central framer of the Paris Agreement. “It’s not for state only. It’s for society.”

The only issue is that none of this is moving fast enough. The IPCC report shows that temperatures have already risen 1°C as a result of human activity and that figure will surpass 1.5°C as early as 2030 without a dramatic shift in direction. A lot of work is necessary to facilitate such a shift. And that’s going to be a huge challenge so long as political tensions persist.

Write to Justin Worland at justin.worland@time.com.

 

Read the rest of this entry

Turnbull’s $444 million barrier reef fraud exposed

Channel Nine’s Karl Stefanovic in cash-for-comment scandal defending Malcom Turnbull’s $444 million fraud

by Shane Dowlingwww.kangaroocourtsaustralia.com

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is in the fight of his life trying to justify his fraudulent awarding of a $444 million grant to the Liberal Party aligned and mining industry backed Great Barrier Reef Foundation. Nine’s Karl Stefanovic has come to Turnbull’s defence on Twitter defending the deal while knowingly concealing that the Great Barrier Reef Foundation is a sponsor of Channel 9.

The problem is that the deal it totally indefensible as all protocols were broken which makes Karl Stefanovic’s cash-for-comment routine blatantly obvious. It also raises issues with Nine’s planned merger with Fairfax Media which I will deal with later but firstly some of the background and Stefanovic’s grubby cash-for-comment Tweet.

Read the full story [HERE]

Leyonhjelm rejects ‘misandry’ claim by Hanson-Young: not all men are rapists

Senator Fraser Anning moves a sensible motion to protect women from violence and allows self-protection

from Senator David Leyonhjelm

A number of supporters have contacted me in the last week to clarify what was said in the senate and why in the exchange with Sarah Hanson-Young. You may have heard media discussion, but many media accounts have lied about, misrepresented or distorted what I said.

The purpose of this email is to correct the record and allow you to judge for yourself.

The Greens nutcase Hanson-young should ‘stop shagging men’ according to Senator Leyjhohelm

Timeline

18/06/2018 – Senator Hanson-Young appeared on Sunrise following the rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon to speak on women’s safety. During this interview she said:

“I think that women around this country are sick and tired of being made to feel responsible for the fact that men cannot control themselves and deal with their own issues. It’s not women’s fault that men behave like morons and like pigs.”

28/06/2018 – Senator Anning introduced a motion in the Senate calling for women to be permitted to use pepper spray, mace and tasers for self-defence. The motion reads:

 

At various points during the speech, Senator Hanson-Young interjects. The video confirms her saying “that’s right” and “hear hear” at various points. It is available here (the motion begins at 12:06:15).

Just after Senator Rice’s speech, Senator Hanson-Young calls out something like “women wouldn’t need pepper spray if men weren’t rapists”.

I responded, “Well you should stop shagging men then, Sarah”.

Following this, Hanson-Young approached my desk and asked me what I’d just said. When I confirmed my comment she called me a creep and I told her to “f… off”.  None of this was captured by the microphones or reported in Hansard.

Later that day Hanson-Young made a statement to the Senate (shown below). I wasn’t in the chamber at the time.

In response I issued this media release in which I made the point that the exchange was essentially about misandry; that is, the labelling of all men as rapists.

That evening I appeared on Sky’s Paul Murray show where the issue was discussed. You can view the relevant extract here.

29/06/2018 – Media reports were tending to misrepresent the issue and leaving out important contextual details, framing the issue as though Hanson-Young was an innocent victim of sexism rather than a sexist who had been called out on her double-standard.

I was contacted by Rowan Dean and invited to appear on Outsiders the following day. I confirmed I was willing to appear but indicated that I preferred to focus the discussion on misandry rather than just my exchange with Hanson-Young.

30/06/2018 – On Outsiders I was asked about the exchange with Hanson-Young. You can view the video extract here. The transcript of my comments which seem to have prompted the complaints is as follows: Read the rest of this entry

Senator tells Hanson-Young to keep shagging men

Academics rally around sacked JCU Professor Peter Ridd

by Don Aitkin

I have written a couple of times about Peter Ridd, here and here. Professor Ridd, a well-published academic whose fields of research include coastal oceanography, reef systems and peer review, has been for ten years the Head of the School of Physics at James Cook University (JCU). When he drew attention to what he saw as exaggerations in the way fellow academics at his university were describing the condition of the Great Barrier Reef he was ‘disciplined’ by JCU, told that he was being uncollegial, and that if he did it again he would be charged with serious misconduct. He subsequently wrote to me about this matter, and that email was seen by the University to be a further sign of misconduct. Professor Ridd decided that he had enough, and launched a legal suit against the University, claiming conflict of interest and bias. The conflict of interest might arise because the Vice-Chancellor of the University is also a director of the Australian Institute for Marine Science, some of whose work Professor Ridd had criticised. He has since withdrawn that part of his suit addressing possible bias on the part of the Vice-Chancellor of the University.

Professor Ridd has now been sacked. Not many professors in Australian universities have ever been fired, and sacking should require some extraordinary misbehaviour on the part of the professor. Professor Ridd is not accepting his sacking quietly, and has raised more than a quarter of a million dollars within a week through crowd-funding. There is going to be a court case.

Sacked JCU Professor Peter Ridd has raised $250,000 for legal costs to defend academic free speech

This is a sad event in Australian higher education, for all sorts of reasons, and at its heart is the working of a new and most important engine in academe. In 1990 I gave an address in England, subsequently published in both the UK and Australia, deploring the extent to which research had become the be-all and end-all of appointment, promotion and honour in our universities. That trend has continued, despite the awards for good teaching, which did not exist when I gave that address.

The engine works this way. There is strong pressure on all academics to bring in research grant money for the department, the faculty and university. Those who do it well find their careers advancing quickly. To assist them there are media sections in universities whose job it is to frame the research work of academics in a way that will gain the attention of the media. Such media releases will come with as arresting a headline as the media section can devise. Buzzwords like ‘breakthrough’, ‘crucial’, ‘cutting edge’ and ‘revolution’ will be used. If possible, the staff members will appear on television, with the accompaniment of familiar stock images of laboratories and machines. The staff members will also be aware (or made aware) of the opportunity they have to advance their careers and names through writing another version of their published journal article for The Conversation, a website in which academics can write in more accessible language for an inquiring lay readership. Free from the requirements of journal house-rules, the staff members will be able to lard up their findings, call for urgency in funding and, where that is apposite, demand political attention. The output of the engine is heightened recognition of the name of the university, the academics and their area, and of course the likely prospect of more research money. All those in the engine-room think that they are just doing their jobs. The engine did not exist thirty years ago.

None of this is much of a problem in the more recondite areas of academic research, string theory in physics, for example, or advanced econometrics in the social sciences. But it is a problem, and a rapidly growing one, in areas of research where what is actually the case is contested vigorously by others. An eye has to be kept on the source of the money going to higher education research, which in our country is overwhelmingly the Australian Government. In 2014, not quite four billion dollars was available within the higher education system for research, all of it from the Commonwealth. In addition universities made another billion or thereabouts from consultancy and research for other funders. That is a lot of money. As the last Chairman of the Australian Research Grants Committee in 1987 I had a little over $30 million to parcel out. The engine has been most effective.

In the last forty years governments have become interested in universities’ finding academic support for what they are proposing or have in place. We are in an era of ‘policy-based evidence’. We are also in an era of a particular political correctness, where it is very difficult indeed to get funds for research if the purpose of the research seems antithetical to current government policy. ‘Curiosity-directed research’ now comes with some serious barriers. Nowhere is this situation clearer than in the case of research on the Great Barrier Reef, in which Professor Ridd has been involved. A bucket-load of money has been devoted to ‘the Reef’, and another half-billion was forecast in the recent Budget, some of which will doubtless go the James Cook University, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The Reef, as is frequently said, is an Australian ‘icon’. An icon is a religious object. Professor Ridd is a scientist, not a priest.

To have people like Professor Ridd decrying the hyperbole with which some research has been couched could imperil future grant money (notwithstanding the recent half-billion), and it would be understandable if academics within JCU have appealed to their Vice-Chancellor to shut Professor Ridd up. Something like this was presumably the reason the late Professor Bob Carter, an internationally distinguished geologist at JCU, was stripped of his adjunct status (which meant he could not use the University Library’s resources, a real penalty). Carter, like Ridd, was concerned to point to the errors of balance and rigour in research and publication on the reef.

There is no likely good outcome from this legal battle. Early on I wrote to the JCU Vice-Chancellor to suggest that she move to settle the issues quickly and away from the court. JCU’s reputation can only worsen as the trial continues, while Professor Ridd will spend his entire time raising money and defending his position. In the meantime his students and colleagues have lost a fine teacher and colleague.

And who is giving attention to the engine, let alone to the engine-room? So far, the major players have remained silent. The Minister, Simon Birmingham, has said nothing, Universities Australia likewise, the NTEU likewise (though it did come to the defence of another professor a few years ago, forced out on what a judge described as a sham redundancy claim). Sacking senior staff who have tried to point out that all is not right with the world is a singular matter, one which, if it passes without comment, can only lead other universities to try and get rid of their own ‘trouble-makers’ the same way. The ability of academics to speak up and out has been one of the universities’ great virtues for at least the last hundred years. They used to be proud of it, too. What is happening at JCU is deeply disturbing to those who value freedom of speech and justified criticism. As the Popper quote at the head of my website reminds us, we learn through disagreement.

 

Ice age on the way but Greens will be immune

by Viv Forbes  Science Writer

Earth is a dangerous place. Of all the species that have ever lived, over 95% have already been extinguished by natural disasters.

Ice, not global warming, is the big killer and this recurring calamity often strikes quickly. Thousands of mammoths and other animals were killed by ice storms and their snap-frozen bodies are still entombed in ice around the Arctic. Just 15,000 years ago great ice sheets smothered the northern hemisphere as far south as Chicago, Moscow and London and all life had migrated towards the equator. This deadly ice had gripped Earth for about 50,000 years.

Ice ages are also times of dry winds and drought as cold oceans and cold dry atmospheres produce little evaporation or precipitation. Great deserts like the Sahara and the Gobi expand, and wind-blown dust fills the skies and rivers.

Adding to Ice Age woes, cold oceans suck the gas of life (carbon dioxide) out of the atmosphere, thus making surviving plants less able to cope with cold and drought. One of the great serendipities of modern life is that man’s use of carbon-rich fuels like oil and coal not only provides energy but also adds carbon dioxide plant food to the severely depleted carbon stocks of the atmosphere. Satellites have detected the resultant greening of the Earth.

The ice age is coming. Which wild animals and humans will survive? The Greens are oblivious being too preoccupied burying CO2 and shutting down industries. Thank God the Greens and Gaia are on the way out.

Earth also suffers cycles of volcanism where much life is extinguished by ash, lava, earthquakes and tsunamis, usually followed by more cold and starvation as dust blocks sunlight. Just one era of volcanism covered the Deccan in India with many lava flows in places more than 2 km thick and spewed hot lava into the oceans along the mid-ocean trenches. Earthquakes and resulting tsunamis swept all life from large areas of land and dumped and buried their fragmented remains in heaps of mud.

We also have evidence of massive destruction on Earth from collisions and near misses by comets and other bodies in the solar system.

Humans are not immune to the threat of extinction, but it will not come from today’s warm, moist, atmosphere or from the gas of life, carbon dioxide. It will probably come from the next glacial cycle in the Pleistocene Ice age, where long bitter glacial eras are separated by short warm periods such as the Holocene warm era in which we live.

In every short warm era like today’s Holocene, the warming oceans expel enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to terrify today’s global warming alarmists. And these times have always supported abundant plant and animal life. But never has “global warming” from this “greenhouse gas” prevented the cyclic return of the ice.

When blizzards blow and glaciers grow, the great ice sheets will spread again and mankind will be decimated by cold, drought, crop failures and starvation. A lucky few living in equatorial regions or clustered in shelters and hot houses around nuclear power stations will survive. Those still able to extract coal, oil or gas may manage to generate enough warmth and carbon dioxide plant food to offset the cold sun, the perma-frost and the barren atmosphere. And a few with appropriate skills and tools may become hunters and gatherers again (but the Neanderthals did not make it last time).

We should celebrate, not fear, the Modern Warm Era and give thanks for the many benefits gained from recycling those marvellous batteries of stored and buried carbon resources to our still-hungry biosphere.

When the ice returns, derelict and snow-bound wind turbines and solar panels will remain as stark evidence of the failed Green religion of yet another endangered species.

Further Reading:

“The Positive Impact of Human CO2 emissions on the Survival of life on Earth”.

https://carbon-sense.com/2018/03/28/benefits-of-human-co2-emissions/

“The Planet of Death: 10 of Earth’s Worst Extinction Events”:
https://interestingengineering.com/planet-death-10-earth-worst-extinction-events

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs-ancient-fossils-new-discoveries/extinction/mass-extinction/

 No Evidence of Unusual Global Warming:

http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/25/alarmism-takes-a-big-hit-flood-of-new-scientific-findings-show-nothing-unusual-happening-climatically/#sthash.6ylIYEPi.dpbs

 

Gun lobby propels Tasmania Liberals back into power

The Tasmanian Liberal Party has won another four-year term, holding government after Saturday’s election.

The best news emanating post-election is the stunning loss of two Greens seats, leaving a lone member. Greens leader of herself, Cassy O’Connor is a racist zealot and after hearing her losing speech on Saturday night, one could be forgiven for thinking she is a few sheep short in the pen.

O’Connor, resplendent with arm tattoos looking like a spokesman for the local chapter of Hells Angels, moaned-on how she wanted to give all of Tasmania to the blackfellas. Poor blackfella me was the gist of her tirade, after which she attracted three clappers from the mildly attentive Greens throng assembled at the electoral commission headquarters.

Sole surviving Tasmania Greens member Cassy O’Connor wanted to give Tasmania to the blackfellas. She can’t understand why the Greens vote dropped to less than 10 per cent 

Miss O’Connor probably doesn’t know that Trugannini was the last, real indigenous woman to live in Tasmania. She died in 1876. There have been a few imposters and interlopers since but history has it; there were no Tasmanian blackfellas alive after 1876.

Like all of Miss O’Connor’s diatribe, this part remains a mystery as to which blackfellas she wanted to give Tasmania.

Predictably, after losing 28 straight opinion polls embattled Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has claimed some of the credit.

He has to gain some accolades from somewhere, self-aggrandisement or not.

Not all election analysists have lost sight of the bolstering effect of the shooter’s vote which gave the Liberals victory.

Two days before the election a smart operator dropped a grenade; the Libs would overhaul the ineffective and costly gun laws adopted by the apple isle after Martin Bryant was framed for the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.

The mainland Liberals and Labor had better take a lesson from this most astute Premier and the gun lobby. Will Hodgman is a presentable, seemingly honest and smart politician the likes of which are sadly lacking in every other state.

We won’t go near federal parliament.

The rest is history.

%d bloggers like this: