Friday, June 7, 2013

Great article by reporter Joe Newby on why NOT to use alternative venue WePlurbUs.

How NOT to run a social media site: The story of Scott Rohter and

pay upIt takes a lot of effort and a lot of money to run a successful social media website.  Sometimes, you have to do a bit of fundraising to make things work the way you want and sometimes, you need to do some old-fashioned advertising.

But Scott Rohter, the appliance repairman who started, has a unique approach — and it’s not winning him many friends.  His plan, it seems, is to berate users and call them names.  If you don’t fold and give him cash, he bans you from the site, and from what I can see, it doesn’t seem to be working too well.

Keep in mind that I’m one of the few people on the planet who actually supported what he’s doing.  I’m no fan of Facebook, even though I use the living daylights out of it.  I hate the way they seem to arbitrarily change the rules on posts and the way they seem to favor liberals over conservatives.  I’ve written about it a lot, and have even spoken with some folks there about it.

So I was excited when I first learned about WePluribUS, and even wrote an article about it in the hopes it would become a viable conservative alternative to Facebook.

At the time — January 2013 — Rohter told me that in about five years, he wanted to give people the option of “buying into” the site.  An interesting idea, to be sure.  But then, after learning what it takes to make such an endeavor work, he realized he needed money.  Fast.

Instead of placing ads on his site or gently reaching out to users, he demanded – that’s right – DEMANDED people pay up.  Or else.  Facebook, with all of its issues, doesn’t do that.

In May, he banned blogger Diane Sori because, according to her, she would not fork over $100 to use the site.  Sori told me at the time that he sent her a number of nasty emails and “expected” her to pay up.

Sori provided one of the emails he sent:
Keep in mind that Rohter originally said in January that the site would be free.
Here’s what I wrote — based on his words — in January:
“Eventually, perhaps in five years, Rohter wants to give members the option of buying into the network for the small fee of setting up their own page, which, by that time, should already be done. Those who do not opt to buy in, he said, may have to deal with some ads to help defray the cost of the site. Rohter said that unlike some, he is not motivated by money.”
Keep this in mind, because just this morning, Rohter called ME a liar, banned me from his site and unfriended me on Facebook.  To which I say, good riddance.

Rohter also hit me up for money.  I told him on Monday that as I was in the middle of personal issues, including a move, that I would take a look at the situation in a couple weeks after things had settled down and I might consider it.  At the time, he was okay with it, but it seems he let his anger cloud his judgment.

Bear in mind that so far, I have defended Rohter from some who have attacked him and his site, and I have supported and promoted his site whenever possible.  I was even warned about Rohter’s anger, but thought nothing of it since at the time, he had been fine with me.

No more.

It’s not uncommon for sites to politely ask for voluntary donations, but sites whose owners berate and demand cash aren’t worth the visits, in my opinion.

WePluribUS had a bright and promising future, if it was set up and run properly.  But people simply are not going to put up with site owners who bully and berate them.

Be sure to check out our Headlines page to see what else our contributors are covering

Obama Administration claims that NSA phone record collection vital to fighting terrorism

 From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

As the Obama Administration continues to downplay Islamic jihad terrorism and exaggerate the terror threat of "right-wing extremists, it is no wonder that it would be conducting surveillance on millions of ordinary Americans. After all, they're the real terror threat. "Administration: NSA phone record collection vital to fighting terrorism," by Aaron Blake for the Washington Post, June 6 (thanks to Kenneth):
The Obama administration says the collection of phone records from millions of Verizon phone customers has been indispensable in the war on terror, fighting back against critics who contend it goes too far.... 
“Information of the sort described in the Guardian article has been a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States, as it allows counterterrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States,” said a senior administration official, granted anonymity to discuss the matter before an official response is issued.
The collection of phone records has earned the ire of civil liberties advocates — including some Democrats.
Former vice president Al Gore late Wednesday tweeted that the surveillance is “obscenely outrageous,” and Senate Intelligence Committee member Mark Udall (D-Colo.) expressed his outrage as well.
“While I cannot corroborate the details of this particular report, this sort of widescale surveillance should concern all of us and is the kind of government overreach I’ve said Americans would find shocking,” Udall said in a statement.
In a lengthy statement, the administration official didn’t appear to take issue with the Guardian report — which is based on a court document the Guardian also published — but emphasized that the order does not allow the government to listen to the phone calls.
Here’s the full statement:
The article discusses what purports to be an order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that authorizes the production of business records. Orders of the FISA Court are classified.
On its face, the order reprinted in the article does not allow the Government to listen in on anyone’s telephone calls. The information acquired does not include the content of any communications or the name of any subscriber. It relates exclusively to metadata, such as a telephone number or the length of a call.
Information of the sort described in the Guardian article has been a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States, as it allows counterterrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States....

Al-Qaeda top dog: U.S. wants to topple Assad and set up pro-Israel Syrian client state

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Actually, if the U.S. acts to topple Assad, it will only be abetting the establishment of an al-Qaeda state. "Al Qaida leader Zawahri urges Syrians: Unite against Assad and bring down Israel-backing U.S.," from Reuters, June 6 (thanks to Anne Crockett):
Al Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahri urged Syrians to unite to bring down President Bashar Assad and thwart what he said were U.S. plans to set up a client state in Syria to safeguard Israel's security. 
In a 22-minute recording, posted on Islamist websites on Thursday to mark 65 years since Israel's founding, Zawahri also said the only way to solve the Palestinian problem was through Jihad, an Islamic holy war.
"Lions of the Levant, unite around this honorable goal and rise above party affiliations," Zawahri said.
"America, its agents and allies want you to shed your blood and the blood of your children and women to bring down the criminal Baathist regime, and then set up a government loyal to them and to safeguard Israel's security," he added.
The recording came one day after Syrian government forces, backed by Lebanese Hezbollah fighters, captured the border town of Qusair from rebels. It appeared on the Mujahideen al-Ansar website, which carries statements from al Qaida leaders.
It was not immediately possible to verify the authenticity of the recording, which made no reference to Qusair, suggesting it was recorded before the campaign to retake the town began more than two weeks ago.
Zawahri, an Egyptian-born preacher who became al Qaida's chief after Osama bin Laden was killed in a U.S. operation in 2011, also criticized Iran for supporting Assad, saying the conflict in Syria had "revealed the ugly face of Iran."
The Iranian-backed group Hezbollah fought with Assad's forces which seized the strategically important border town of Qusair from rebels on Wednesday.
Influential Sunni Muslim cleric Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawi last week called for Jihad against Assad after Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah acknowledged his forces had joined the fighting in Qusair.
Zawahri warned Syrians not to play into the hands of the United States which, he said, wanted to turn their Jihad into a "Western tool against Iran."
He said that fighters seeking to topple Assad in Syria had rekindled hope that one day that might happen.
"There is no solution for Palestine except Jihad," Zawahri said.
"Every free Muslim in Palestine should unite with his Muslim brothers to implement Sharia (Islamic law) and rule by it, and make it a reference above all references, and to liberate Palestine in order to set up an Islamic state, even if the West hates that and calls it terrorism and extremism," he added.
Zawahri's last audio message dates to April, when he also urged Muslims to unite and support Jihad to create a state governed by Islamic law.

Back during the Bush administration, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage famously called Hezbollah the “A Team of terrorists,” adding, “al-Qaeda is actually the B Team.” How do these two organizations compare today?

Last week, the State Department released the 2012 issue of its annual “Country Reports on Terrorism.” At a “background briefing,” a “senior administration official” highlighted an “alarming trend”: a “marked resurgence of terrorist activity by Iran and Hezbollah. The tempo of operational activity was something we haven’t seen since the 1990s. . . We see no signs of this activity abating in 2013. In fact, our assessment is that Hezbollah and Iran will both continue to maintain a heightened level of terrorist activity and operations in the near future.”

The State Department is right to see Hezbollah and Iran as joined at the hip: the former is financed and instructed by the latter. That has not always been understood, despite the fact that, prior to 9/11/01, Hezbollah was responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist organization. And Hezbollah’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, has proclaimed, “Death to America was, is, and will stay our slogan."

It’s well known that Hezbollah has been sending combatants into Syria in support of Bashar Assad, the dictator and Iranian satrap. Less publicized are Hezbollah’s operations in other corners of the world. A Hezbollah attack on a bus in Bulgaria last July killed five Israelis and one Bulgarian. In Nigeria, authorities recently broke up a Hezbollah cell, seizing what one Nigerian official called “a large quantity of assorted weapons of different types and caliber.”

The State Department report contains surprisingly little information about Hezbollah in Latin America. However, a 500-page report issued last week by Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman reveals that Iran has established an archipelago of “clandestine intelligence stations and operative agents” in Latin America that are being used “to execute terrorist attacks when the Iranian regime decides so, both directly or through its proxy, the terrorist organization Hezbollah.”

The following are South American countries in which Iran or Hezbollah has set up intelligence/terrorism bases: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, and Suriname.

Nisman provides additional evidence — not that more is needed — that Iranian officials and one Lebanese Hezbollah operative were responsible for two terrorist bombings in Argentina in the 1990s. There’s an American nexus too: Nisman charges that Mohsen Rabbani, Iran’s former cultural attaché in Buenos Aires — implicated in the 1994 attack on a Jewish center in Buenos Aires in which 85 people were killed — directed “Iranian agent” Abdul Kadir, now serving a life sentence in connection with the 2010 plot to bomb John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.

Connect the dots, Nisman argues, and they draw a picture of Iran “fomenting and fostering acts of international terrorism in concert with its goals of exporting the revolution.”

All this considered, can al-Qaeda still be considered a serious competitor? Yes, it can! Last weekend, my colleague, über-researcher Tom Joscelyn, pointed out that AQ and its affiliates now “are fighting in more countries than ever.”

In Afghanistan, AQ maintains safe havens in the provinces of Kunar and Nuristan. The Taliban, its loyal ally, is responsible for a level of violence “higher than before the Obama-ordered surge of American forces in 2010,” according to NATO’s International Security Assistance Force.

AQ and its affiliates have bases in northern Pakistan. The Pakistani government, Joscelyn notes, “continues to be a duplicitous ally, sponsoring and protecting various al Qaeda-allied groups. The Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), or Pakistani Taliban, remains a threat after orchestrating the failed May 2010 bombing in Times Square. The State Department announced in September 2010 that the TTP has “a ‘symbiotic relationship’ with al Qaeda.”

The AQ-affiliated al-Nusrah Front may be the most effective force fighting against Assad’s troops and against Hezbollah and Iranian combatants in Syria. AQ is resurgent in neighboring Iraq, with April 2013 being the deadliest month in that country in nearly five years, according to the U.N.

AQ has expanded operations in Yemen. In Somalia, Shabaab — which formally merged with AQ last year — is far from defeated and has managed to carry out attacks in neighboring Kenya and Uganda as well. In Nigeria, Boko Haram continues to slaughter Christians. In Egypt, al-Qaeda members and associates — including Mohammed al-Zawahiri, the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri — are operating more freely than ever. On 9/11/12 they hoisted an AQ flag above the U.S. embassy in Cairo.

Libyan groups closely linked to al-Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11/12 attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb easily took over northern Mali until French forces pushed them out of the population centers.

Al-Qaeda affiliates are becoming more visible and perhaps viable in Tunisia, too.

Despite all this, the State Department report asserts that “core” al-Qaeda “is on a path to defeat.” I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence to substantiate that thesis. And even if it does prove to be accurate, who’s to say that a weakening core can’t be compensated for by a stronger periphery?

In the final analysis, “Which is the A Team of terrorism?” is not the paramount question. What is: in the years ahead, does the U.S. have what it takes to be the A Team of counterterrorism?
In the sixth month of his second term, President Obama is still trying to figure out what he wants to do in the remainder of his presidency.

Thus far, Obama -- who appears to spend most of his time delivering speeches -- doesn't have a clue. He has become the "Podium President" whose only agenda is to avoid dealing with the economy.

While polls show that the economy remains the number one concern for the American people, it has become "the quiet crisis" in Obama's government -- unheralded, unspoken, unnoticed and untreated. No one talks about it, least of all the Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Efforts at creating jobs in this economy have become far less important for the administration than winning messaging wars and riding out the scandals that threaten to engulf the Obama presidency.
At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a battery of committees and subcommittees are holding hearings on a range of administration scandals that constitute significant abuses of power.

House lawmakers heard testimony this past week from ordinary Americans affiliated with various conservative groups who said that the IRS had demanded the names of political figures with whom they've been in contact, copies of speeches they'd given, and lists of their donors. These were only some of the disturbing inquiries that threatened their right to free speech.

The IRS made no such inquiries into liberal non-profit groups seeking similar tax exempt status.

Elsewhere, lawmakers are digging more deeply into Attorney General Eric Holder's dubious claim that he had no role in the administration's alarming search of a Fox News reporter's e-mails, when numerous public reports say he signed off on the Justice Department's order.

Now we learn that the National Security Agency is collecting tens of millions of Americans' Verizon telephone records after an April court order.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is busily preparing to put its health care program into full gear next year, a program that will authorize the IRS to penalize millions of Americans who do not obtain health insurance. Small businesses which do not provide medical insurance for their employes will also be liable.

Is it any wonder that 56 percent of Americans recently told the Gallup Poll that "the federal government today has too much power?" I expect that number to rise leading up to the 2014 midterm elections.

A little over a week ago, the national news media grew hyperbolic over the news that home prices and home sales were rising in many metropolitan areas, declaring that this was proof positive of a more robust economy. But left unreported was the fact that home sales remain far below their highs before the sub-prime home mortgage collapse and that they have barely impacted economic growth.

University of Maryland economist Peter Morici reminds us that home sales at higher prices "only impact GDP [the broadest measurement of economic growth] and employment to the extent those drive up consumer spending and new home construction.

But consumer spending is weakening, and even though home building is up, "housing construction is only 3 percent of GDP," Morici points out."Bottom line: a more robust economy can drive housing but surging housing prices are no panacea for what ails the economy and jobs market."

With mortgage rates rising toward the 4 percent level, (partly in anticipation of the Federal Reserve suggesting it may taper down its low interest rate policy) home sales could decline again.

Let's examine some economic data from the past couple of weeks in the aftermath of the cheerleading from nightly news shows.

-- The Commerce Department reports that consumer spending fell 0.2 percent in April for the first time in nearly a year. Battered by higher taxes (including this year's hike in the Social Security payroll tax) and high gasoline prices, consumers have pulled back -- not a good sign.

-- Manufacturing output fell to its lowest level in four years in May, according to the Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing index (from 50.7 in April to 49 in May). "We definitely have seen some softness in the economic data for manufacturing over the last few months," Chad Moutray, chief economist for the National Association of Manufacturers, told the Washington Post this week.

-- Hourly pay scales for non-farm workers dropped at a 3.8 percent annualized rate in the first three months of this year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported this week. Hourly pay has risen by 2 percent annually on average over the past four years. That's "the weakest four-year stretch on record," writes economic analyst Mark Gongloff of Huffington Post. Overall, weekly wages have been flat.

-- Payroll provider ADP reported this week that U.S. businesses added just 135,000 jobs in May, well below the 165,000 jobs created in April. Notably, the private survey firm found that manufacturers lost 6,000 jobs last month.

If Friday's Bureau of Labor Statistics job report falls anywhere near this range, it will be an unimpeachable sign that the economy is slowing once again.

Some analysts insist this downturn is in large part due to government spending cuts, but a meager $85 billion in sequester cuts isn't seriously hurting a nearly $17 trillion economy. This is the result anti-growth, anti-job tax rates, regulations, energy, and trade policies.

Don't look for a dramatic change in the Obama economy anytime soon. The president and his party seem perfectly comfortable with his policies and see no reason to change them now.

Report: 9 Internet Firms Giving Data to Government

By: Greg Richter / Newsmax

Image: Report: 9 Internet Firms Giving Data to Government
It's not just your cell phone calls. Nine Internet companies have been giving your emails, videos, photos and more to the NSA and FBI, The Washington Post reports.

The classified program PRISM began in 2007 and has signed on Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple. Cloud storage website Dropbox is set to join soon.

PRISM has become the biggest contributor to President Barack Obama's Daily Brief, the Post reports, with a total of 1,447 articles in 2012. One in seven intelligence reports are based on PRISM data.

The program descends from a program in the 1970s in which 100 American companies worked with the government, though PRISM is more like the controversial warrantless surveillance efforts undertaken after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

PRISM attempts to use formulas to avoid gathering data from Americans, but the system isn't perfect. And while compliance by the companies is voluntary, the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court can force compliance.

Apple resisted participation for five years, and Twitter has never joined.

The Post said it obtained information on the program from a career intelligence officer who believes the program is a serious invasion of privacy.

"They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type," the officer told the Post.

Reuters reports that both Apple and Facebook deny knowing anything about the PRISM program and say they do not allow any government agency "direct access" to their servers.

China 'throwing down the hatchet' with U.S.

Admiral: 'We're in another Cold War with another communist, totalitarian regime'

China is claiming control over the vast majority of the South China Sea in its latest effort to challenge U.S. authority, and President Obama must make it clear that cannot happen, warns retired U.S. Navy Admiral James “Ace” Lyons.

The New York Times recently reported that China is quietly distributing official maps to foreign diplomats showing it controls 80 percent of the South China Sea, considerably more than it has publicly claimed in the past. Six different nations have competing claims for various parts of the sea, which is rich in oil, gas and minerals. If China were recognized as controlling 80 percent of the sea, foreign planes and ships would have to seek permission to enter those critical waters.

Lyons, who served 36 years in the U.S. Navy and completed his career as commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, told WND this simply cannot be allowed to happen, and it’s incumbent upon President Obama to stop it.

“President Obama has to be very clear and let China know we will not tolerate their illegal claims to these vast ocean areas that have been recognized for centuries as international waters,” said Lyons, who argued that Obama has a golden opportunity to set things straight this week when he meets with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in California. “This will probably be one of the first issues discussed at the summit, and I’m sure that our allies will be watching carefully how President Obama handles this issue.”

According to Lyons, the U.S. Navy policy on the South China Sea has been consistent from the beginning of our nation, and he said China benefits from the longstanding policy as well.

“The United States Navy has stood for freedom of navigation and the right of innocent passage for over 236 years, and we’re certainly not going to change course now. And we’re certainly not going to back down on that recognized principle. China has to recognize they’ve benefited greatly from that principle,” Lyons said.

The admiral warned this move by the Chinese is a major step toward a larger, more disturbing goal: surpassing the United States on the high seas.

“China has built a navy specifically to fight the United States Navy. You know, their anti-ship ballistic missile is not to go against the Bangladesh navy,” Lyons said. “We should consider that an unfriendly act. By their actions, they have thrown down the hatchet. They really are signaling to us that we are entering the 21st century where we’re in another Cold War with another communist, totalitarian regime,” he said.

So what would the best U.S. strategy be to make the Chinese reverse course?

“First of all, we have to make clear to China that we will stand by our mutual defense treaty with our allies over this issue should hostilities develop,” said Lyons, who is very critical of what he sees as decreasing of our military might.

“We have to stop this unilateral disarmament that we’ve been going through. When we have five carriers tied up at the piers in Norfolk, Va., that’s unconscionable because we don’t have the funds to operate them. So sequestration has got to be reversed.”

Most of America’s nuclear focus since the end of the Cold War centered on the Asian subcontinent, North Korea, Iran and other rogue states. Lyons said the U.S. needs to appreciate just how much of an arsenal China likely holds.

“The Russians estimate that the Chinese have over 1,800 strategic warheads. That’s much more than the 300 we give them credit for. So when we sit down with the Russians on any future arms limitations talks, the Chinese need to be forced to participate and be at the table,” Lyons said. “And to further put teeth in that, President Obama has to live up to the commitment that he made when he got Congress to sign off on the last arms treaty agreement with the Russians, and that was to modernize our strategic infrastructure and the development of a new warhead.”

Lyons admits China holding a sizable chunk of America’s debt hurts U.S. efforts to demand policy changes, but he said it’s not as big of a factor as some suggest.

“I think that works both ways. That’s one side of the equation, but we also have leverage on the other.

I believe China needs us more than we need them,” he said. “They need this market here, and they can’t afford to lose it.”

Listen to the entire radio interview here:
Dishonor and Disrespect on D-Day
By: Diane Sori

Yesterday was D-Day, one of the bloodiest yet most honored days in history, for on the beaches of Normandy, France, the course World War II took changed the world forever.

D-Day…when men…NO…when boys…knew the meaning of courage, of sacrifice, and of love of country.

D-Day…determination…dedication…and an unyielding faith in God Almighty.

D-Day…when hell ruled the seas yet was beaten back by an inner strength few knew they had…but by many who knew it was up to them to set the world right again.

Our beloved Ronald Reagan said it best when in his commemorative speech at Pointe du Hoc, on the 40th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion, spoke these words from his heart:

“You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.”

“Strengthened by their courage, heartened by their value [valor], and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died.”

Just seeing those words set down on paper brings tears to my eyes for the honor, respect, and love Reagan showed for those brave souls who fought and died that fateful day are words we must NEVER forget.

And how it pains me to see how far we’ve fallen from the days when we had a president who honored those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms…to this day when we have a president who NOT only dishonors our brave men and women in uniform but who actually sides with America’s enemies.

And I cry for our beloved America…I cry for all those who gave their lives for our freedoms who now in Heaven must feel how did their sacrifice go so terribly wrong.

But NO, their sacrifice did NOT go wrong for there are many of us who still have that inner strength and courage of conviction to be willing to fight and die for our country…to fight and die to make sure our beloved America lives on, and that our children have that very future these past heroes gave their lives for.
But yesterday, on a gray day 69 years after the sand turned red with American and allied blood, when our media should have been filled with stories of their bravery…with stories of their courage and sacrifice…with stories remembering and honoring those who died on far away beaches…instead we got stories about our government tracking private citizen’s phone records…stories about the IRS running amok and about our press being compromised…stories about people being appointed to positions of power who belong in jail NOT setting American foreign policy…stories about Israel’s security being compromised by this administration…but NO stories about Benghazi…Benghazi...a story of courage, of bravery, of sacrifice and of betrayal during today's time of war...and NO stories of our president paying homage to fallen brave men.

These are the stories we got and the stories we didn't get, because on a day when our president should have been paying our nation's respect at the D-Day Memorial, we had a president who has NEVER visited that memorial nor made any mention anywhere in the past three years about this most solemn of days.

NO.. yesterday we had a president who jetted off to a photo-op in North Carolina and a fundraiser in California ( for that was more important to him than honoring those who helped saved the world.

How ashamed I am of this president…how ashamed I am that he could NOT find it in his heart to take even a few minutes out of his day to bow his head in prayer and say thank-you from a grateful nation to those who gave their lives in the name of freedom…how sad I am that all those who made the ultimate sacrifice can’t even get a kind word of remembrance from the ‘supposed’ leader of the free world…a world that those who died on D-Day made it possible for him to live in.

So sad to have a president who is a national disgrace…a president who forgets or just doesn’t care about the sacrifices made on the beaches of Normandy 69 years ago yesterday…so very, very sad.