AusOpinion

Featuring quality political opinion, analysis and much more

The Wikileaks Party Lurches To The Right: Preferences Fascists, Mens-righters and Gun-lovers above the Greens

WED AUG 21 2013: Assange’s running-mate has resigned as a Wikileaks Party candidate over this issue.

NOTE: After adding 4 updates, this story was getting messy so I have totally re-arranged it and added more info. The most recent version before this update is here.

Just two days after Wikileaks Party Senate candidate for Victoria, Julian Assange, raised eyebrows by praising US anti-abortion politicians Ron Paul and Senator Rand Paul, the Wikileaks Party revealed a new attempt to appeal to the far Right. In official election tickets lodged with the Australian Electoral Commission, they have said they want the fascist Australia First Party, the pro-shooting-in-National-Parks Shooters and Fishers Party , and the “mens rights activist” Non-Custodial Parents Party to win a seat instead of the Australian Greens. In New South Wales, if you take the easy option and just tick the Wikileaks Party box in the Senate, and if they don’t win, your vote will go to those three right-wing parties before it goes to the Greens. One of the parties Assange is preferencing above the Greens, the Shooters and Fishers Party, already has two members serving in the State parliament in New South Wales today, who got elected by taking advantage of other parties’ votes. (See here for more background detail on how Australia’s complex system of interlocking preference deals can get tiny parties elected).

This decision has provoked open hostility from the Greens on Twitter. Greens NSW State parliamentarian Jeremy Buckingham attacked the decision early in the day, and Greens Senator from Western Australia, Scott Ludlam, who has staunchly stood up for Assange’s legal rights despite Assange being wanted for questioning on sexual assault matters in Sweden, also regards Wikileaks’ decision to preference him below the National Party in Western Australia as hostile. Wikileaks Party candidate Gerry Georgatos, who defended this decision, said that the National Party is defintely not going to win a seat in WA, and therefore the Greens will get to use Wikileaks Party votes. However there is a strong argument against that position, and Ludlam rejects it, saying Georgatos has risked handing control of the Senate to the conservative Liberal/National Coalition.

It wasn’t just politicians who were angry, with a wave of angry tweets coming from the politicially engaged; a wave which grew in intensity after they claimed the preference decision in New South Wales was an “administrative error”:

In allocating preferences between 53 other parties or groups in NSW some administrative errors occurred, as has been the case with some other parties. The overall decision as to preferences was a democratically made decision of the full National Council of the party. According to the National Council decision The Shooters & Fishers and the Australia First Party should have been below Greens, Labor, Liberal.

The Wikileaks Party has given no more details about this supposed error. However rumours about this preferencing arrangement have been circulating since at least Sunday August 11, when Greens activist and councillor Max Phillips says he was told by a Wikileaks Party member at the Marrickville Markets that the Right-wing preferences were going to happen “because the Greens are our competition”. Phillips tweeted his suspicions at the time, but Wikileaks Party NSW candidate Kellie Tranter rejected them and countered by asking what the Greens intended to do with their preferences. The rumours were also dismissed as unfounded by Wikileaks Victorian candidate in Victoria, Leslie Cannold.

Phillips took this photo of the woman at the market stall who advised him the right-wing preferences were going ahead. Online privacy activist Asher Wolf confirms that this woman is Cassandra Findlay, (on Twitter as @CassPF), one of the Deputy Registered Officer of the Wikileaks Party. As the Deputy Registered Officer, Findlay was one of the two people who lodged the “Group Voting Ticket” form with the Australian Electoral Commission on Friday, the form that officially said Wikileaks Party preferences were going to fascists above Greens.

This seems certain to prevent the Wikileaks Party from winning a seat. While their preferences in Victoria aren’t offensive to potential left-wing supporters, that detail is likely to not matter to people angry about the NSW decision, and it’s Victoria where Assange is running. Realistically, if the Wikileaks Party doesn’t come first out of themselves, Family First, the Shooters and Fishers Party and the Australian Sex Party, they have absolutely no chance of coming through the middle of the pack and winning a seat. Even then, they’d need about 250,000 votes of their own, as well as being able to use all the votes those other parties get. The polls currently show about 8% of people intend to vote for small parties other than the Greens – that’s about 270,000 – 300,000 votes in *total* to be spread across all the small parties in Victoria.

Assange was never likely to win a seat anyway, even if the Wikileaks Party hadn’t angered people today with their preferences. But now their chance of getting anyone who thinks of themselves as Left to co-operate with their organisation long term is zero. (If Assange is serious about seeing the libertarian right-wing as the wave of the future, perhaps they don’t care). But where are they going to get volunteers to come to long, boring meetings on winter nights? Their volunteer co-ordinator in WA has already resigned, and prominent supporter Mary Kostakidis tweeted that the WA decision was a “major error of judgment”. Where are they going to get people willing to argue the case for the Party to their friends? Where are they going to get people to stand outside polling booths handing out “How-To-Vote Cards”? And where are they going to win enough goodwill to be trusted ever again? The Wikileaks Party in Australia today put itself in the shredding machine of history.

UPDATE: Assange spoke to Perth radio station RTR-FM‘s Indymedia show on Monday August 19. You can listen to the part of the interview where preferencing is discussed here:


Assange said he was not personally involved, and said decisions about preferences in states other than Victoria were made by “candidates or officers”. But he said “we’re not sure what’s happened in NSW”. [NOTE: This appears to contradict the "administrative error" post on the Wikileaks Party Facebook page, which says the decision was made by the Party's National Council].

In WA, about Gerry Georgatos’ decision to preference the National Party’s David Wirrapanda over Greens Senator Scott Ludlum, Assange said “Ludlam is one of the best guys in the Senate”, but the “Wikileaks Party is not a plaything of Julian Assange”.

Assange fell back onto the idea that Wirrapanda will not be elected so preferencing an Aboriginal man who is also a National candidate is merely “symbolic”

There is an interesting discussion at the end by the hosts about the anger the decision has caused. The hosts (without Assange listening it seems) say that the decision to preference Wirrapanda could lose the Greens the balance of power in the Senate. One of the hosts calls the decision “very disappointing, very disillusioning”. (Which makes my cynical tweets just before airtime very wrong, for which I apologise to the show and RTR-FM).

66 comments on “The Wikileaks Party Lurches To The Right: Preferences Fascists, Mens-righters and Gun-lovers above the Greens

  1. Dr_Tad
    August 18, 2013

    Glen Drury strikes again.

    Like this

  2. Darin Sullivan
    August 18, 2013

    Reblogged this on The Left Hack.

    Like this

  3. Jonno
    August 18, 2013

    Wow that’s a lot more biased and a lot less accurate than main-stream media. Giving up this blog as of now.

    Like this

    • davidjackmanson
      August 18, 2013

      Biased? Absolutely!

      Inaccurate? Where?
      Point out any inaccuracy you like. I will prove you wrong, and if I can’t I will publish a correction in bold letters above the first paragraph of this post.

      Like this

      • Dave
        August 19, 2013

        “Because the Wikileaks Party is running for the Senate, they get to say (in most cases) where your vote goes if you vote for them and they don’t win”

        Seems a deliberate mischaracterisation of preferences.

        Like this

        • davidjackmanson
          August 19, 2013

          Really? How would you describe above-the-line Senate preferences?

          Like this

          • Dave
            August 19, 2013

            I’d definitely specify that the use of above-the-line preferences is entirely up to the individual voter.

            Like this

            • davidjackmanson
              August 19, 2013

              “In New South Wales, if you take the easy option and just tick the Wikileaks Party box in the Senate, and if they don’t win, your vote will go to those three right-wing parties before it goes to the Greens”.

              Pretty sure that’s enough of a signal that there is more complexity here than I’ve described outright. Comment threads are good for asking bloggers to expand on that sort of thing. But they can be used for nitpickery as well if you like.

              Like this

  4. Fran Barlow
    August 18, 2013

    I’m genuinely stunned at this, and that’s quite rare for me. While I still oppose the forcible rendition of Assange to US “justice” this is deeply troubling.

    Like this

    • davidjackmanson
      August 18, 2013

      It seems for the whole time Assange has been famous, his close supporters have tried to take one fact – that the US government clearly wants to get their hands on him – and turn it into a reason why we should not just support Assange’s rights, but actively support him personally and politically.

      The trouble is that even a lot of people who like the idea of leaking Government secrets, and who think the Swedish government was surprisingly eager to question Assange, still don’t think that Assange is the answer to all our problems.

      Like this

  5. Bob
    August 18, 2013

    Dave; sInce the party is basically run by green activists, perhaps you are best placed to explain how the preferences ended up as they did?

    Like this

    • davidjackmanson
      August 18, 2013

      I don’t think the Wikileaks Party is “basically run by green activists”. Most green activists are either blockading a forest somewhere or involved with the Australian Greens.

      Like this

      • LS
        August 20, 2013

        This bullshit isn’t about ideology the wikileaks party shares with fascists, mens-righters, and gun lovers. It’s about the wheeling and dealing that small parties must engage in to get anywhere in the circus that is our senate. Same shit with the sex party – does anyone really think they share anything at all with one nation? The only thing they share is a desire for seats.
        Hate the game, not the players.

        Like this

        • davidjackmanson
          August 20, 2013

          I hate both the game, and the players who’ve cynically decided to join in the game.

          We could easily abolish the game, by a simple change in the way we vote – if we just put a ’1′ in a party’s box on the ballot paper “above the line”, then only that party gets to use the votes. If that party doesn’t win, then unless we put “2″, “3″ and so on in other “above the line” boxes, no-one else gets to use your vote. That takes the power to make these dodgy deals away from small parties.

          Just because the game is rigged, that doesn’t mean we have to give the Wikileaks Party, Sex Party and so on a free pass for their opportunistic deals with right-wingers.

          Like this

  6. bob
    August 18, 2013

    I’d disagree, but if its fair dinkum how did you did you know the preferences before any of us did?

    Like this

  7. NK
    August 19, 2013

    Australian Sex Party are stuffed too, preferenced One Nation over the Greens.

    Like this

    • John
      August 30, 2013

      Just curious as to why people are getting so upset other parties are preferenced before greens? Greens continuing to hold power another term will screw this country completely. They have already find enough damage!

      Like this

      • davidjackmanson
        August 30, 2013

        Shockingly enough, not everyone agrees with your political opinion. Some of them even have a favourable view of the Greens.

        Like this

  8. NK
    August 19, 2013

    I don’t really think anyone took this seriously, mind you, probably not even Assange. I’m not that fond of him but I do want ideas like Wikileaks itself to keep currency. Just call me a left-wing libertarian ( yes, it exists! )

    Like this

  9. Pingback: Are there any @WikileaksParty voters left? And did @aussexparty betray its base? #auspol | Only The Sangfroid

  10. Beth Thompson
    August 19, 2013

    What are your sources for this article?
    When did they announce these preferences?

    Like this

  11. David Reid
    August 19, 2013

    The preference decision really flags that WikiLeaks Party is right wing libertarian rather than left wing progressive. However, I suspect that most of their votes would have come from the left wing progressives. Hence this preference decision is likely to lead to a significant drop in their vote. They might have hoped for 3-4% before this debacle, but I’d say they will get 1-2% now.

    Like this

    • davidjackmanson
      August 19, 2013

      Yes, when I was on the “administrative error” Facebook post by the WLP, I saw quite a few comments actively hostile to the Greens, talking about typical Right-wing causes as vaccination, flouridation, the Reserve Bank and so on. I think a lot of progressive voters who came up against that sort of person would be very surprised and disorientated; I suppose people like that are who WLP will have to rely on in the future for support.

      It would have been pretty hard to build an organisation that could unite people like that and progressives, but there’s absolutely no chance now. Progressives who were excited to see, say, Scott Ludlam speak up against the national security state on behalf of Assange will likely want nothing to do with WLP.

      Like this

      • NK
        August 20, 2013

        Vaccination a right-wing cause? The Greens are certainly pro vaccination. Or do you mean the anti flouride, anti vax, check out that chemtrail nutjobs?

        Like this

        • davidjackmanson
          August 20, 2013

          Yup, exactly those people. Good luck getting any actual work done with them.

          Like this

          • NK
            August 20, 2013

            Erg. There goes the last shred of respect whooshing past. Those people are the arse end of the interwebs.

            Like this

            • davidjackmanson
              August 20, 2013

              I’ve generally found people who hold that circle of ideas very intellectually inflexible. It’s very hard for anyone who doesn’t agree with them to work with them long-term, I think.

              Maybe WLP is happy to have a very narrow but very intensely-focused base?

              Like this

              • NK
                August 20, 2013

                Problem with them, as a workforce, is that they drop everyone in a flash to go over to, say, the ABC news website, and make thousands of comments in a thread about vaccinations. Herp derp herp etc

                Like this

    • Jay Somasundaram
      August 19, 2013

      And the Greens referenced Palmer (to be fair, I don’t quite know what Palmer stands for, and suspect it’s against everybody he feels slighted by)..

      Like this

      • davidjackmanson
        August 19, 2013

        Yes, I suspect that will come back to bite the Greens. I’m trying to find an official statement on either of their websites and their facebook page and Twitter, but nothing, even when searching for Ben Spies-Butcher, who was quoted in the media justifying the decision.

        Rather a dumb decision when they had the moral high ground, but it seems all sorts of party hacks will assume people will just shut up and accept stuff.

        Like this

  12. Greg
    August 19, 2013

    Long game – Rand Paul for President 2016 – some chance of Republican nomination. Ron Paul hung tough to the end of the primaries, so the organisation is available. After that, who knows? Rand Paul is possibly JA’s only real chance of a friendly hearing inside the US.

    Like this

    • davidjackmanson
      August 19, 2013

      President Rand Paul? I doubt it. But powerful enough to be able to swing some favours inside the national seccurity state? That sounds plausible enough.

      Like this

  13. J.t
    August 20, 2013

    Mischaracterised Ron Paul as well, while he is personally against abortion (he was an obgyn), he doesn’t believe the Federal government should be funding it, then again he also doesn’t believe the federal government should fund healthcare. Abortion being a hot button topic for lefties in the US meant many took his aversion to federally mandated healthcare as an “attack” on a women’s right to choose.

    As Dr Paul said numerous times, while he has personal views on the matter, he would scrap all federal healthcare and not just abortion. He was running for president, thus his oversight was the executive powers of the president. He is a strict constitutionalist, so anything not outlined by the founding fathers….he’s not voting for.

    I am a massive fan of Ron Paul, his son Rand looks less libertarian and more conservative, however Gary Johnson has suggested he might run on the republican ticket, that would be awesome.

    I loved Assanges comments, it shows he has done some serious research on Dr Paul, his writings and his beliefs and ideological positions….instead of the usual google ‘ron paul bad’.

    Obviously i’m a libertarian, but do somer research in Dr Paul, he’s an interesting politician. I would vote for any Australian politician who extolled his virtues.

    Like this

    • davidjackmanson
      August 20, 2013

      Yeah, I actually did do some fact-checking on that:

      “I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”

      http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

      Your hair splitting about what Ron Paul would have done with his “States Rights” position on abortion ignores the fact that people of his opinion would immediately move to make abortion illegal in any state they could.

      Ron Paul is anti-abortion. Simple as that.

      Like this

      • NK
        August 20, 2013

        Yep. Abortion leads to euthanasia. Head desk.

        Like this

      • J.T
        August 20, 2013

        See you did the quick research thing.
        I already mentioned RP was personally anti abortion.

        If you dig into his roe V Wade position though, you would see he has a dislike for judicial activism in general. His position is, its the not the job of the court to parse the constitution, but to rule on how issues fit into that prism.

        This judicial activism is not a left right issue, its been argued against and for by both sides of politics.

        You quote his PERSONAL position.

        “Your hair splitting about what Ron Paul would have done with his “States Rights”

        I’m not hair splitting on states rights, that’s his position.

        From the same link you posted:

        “At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.”

        So you are either being deliberately disingenuous or you chose to ignore the states rights thing because it does not fit your world view of RP.

        He has lots of history with issues like this, to prove your “simple as that quote” is just that, simple…

        Take drug legalization. like abortion he is anti drug, but here is his position from that same website you quoted:

        “the federal war on drugs has proven costly and ineffective, while creating terrible violent crime. But if you question policy, you are accused of being pro-drug. That is preposterous. As a physician, father, and grandfather, I abhor drugs. I just know that there is a better way — through local laws, communities, churches, and families — to combat the very serious problem of drug abuse than a massive federal-government bureaucracy.”

        As is clear from this subject, Paul thinks on various levels, both what is the role of government, the role of the federal government, the constitution and his role as a former Doctor.

        Which is much more in depth than say, our Australian MP’s and leaders who constantly over ride and intrude on states rights, mostly at a whim.

        Dr Paul is not who you would like to portray him as, he puts aside his personal belief system constantly if he believes its does not fall within the constitutional control of the Federal Government or the constitution.

        Its clear Assange has done his homework and that sadly you have not.

        Just as I thought, people in Australia try to “paint” Dr Paul, without any serious consideration or reseafor his position.

        Like this

        • davidjackmanson
          August 20, 2013

          Yes, you ARE splitting hairs.

          The reason is this: There are far more positions of political power in the USA than the Presidency. Ron Paul is the symbolic leader of a very wide movement, including people in local and state office all over the USA. When Ron Paul said the US Federal Government should not legislate on abortion, he was saying to those people “You should go ahead and make abortion illegal in your state, and hard to get in county and city facilities, and if I’m President I will make sure the Federal Government gets out of your way”.

          That is the direct implication of his pro-life position. For Assange to speak of this position in a friendly way puts a huge gap between him and many people who until recently might have supported him in Australia.

          “States Rights” is always a term that needs to be unpacked to see who benefits from States having more power at any given time. For example, the term has a long history in the USA of being a rallying cry of those who wanted slavery and white supremacy to continue.

          Like this

          • J.T
            August 20, 2013

            “The reason is this: There are far more positions of political power in the USA than the Presidency. ”

            That’s by design, obviously the US didn’t want to centralize power after the war of independence.

            “When Ron Paul said the US Federal Government should not legislate on abortion, he was saying to those people “You should go ahead and make abortion illegal in your state, and hard to get in county and city facilities, and if I’m President I will make sure the Federal Government gets out of your way”.

            Ok, sorry, my bad, I thought this was a serious discussion. I didn’t realize we had strayed into stupidity.

            I thought i was talking to someone who understood states rights and the history of the movement as such. If you didn’t understand the history i thought I had demonstrated Dr Paul’s commitment to states rights when I posted about his drugs position.

            This is the reality of your position: Dr Paul is personally against drugs, but if, for example and as has happened, Drugs are legalized in certain states, Dr Paul against his personal opinion, wouldn’t use the Federal Government to intervene.

            You keep trying to paint Dr Paul as some neo con, clutching at straws and posting opinion as fact.

            I haven’t tried to miss-represent his opinion. He is a ardent constitutionalist. that by definition, means he will respect states rights and wouldn’t, if give the opportunity, say as president not use the power of the presidency or congress to intervene in issues he personally objects to, such as abortion or drugs.

            I’m sorry but its clear with this statement:
            “You should go ahead and make abortion illegal in your state, and hard to get in county and city facilities, and if I’m President I will make sure the Federal Government gets out of your way”.

            Your not in anyway interested in investigating what and who Julian Assange clearly believes is a serious person.

            Like this

        • NK
          August 20, 2013

          Well move to the USA and vote for Saint Paul then. This is not a forum for your views on Rand. Piss off.

          Like this

          • davidjackmanson
            August 20, 2013

            No no no, this is *fascinating*. The “do your homework” condescension, and the utter blindness to political reality while considering oneself learned. I want to learn more about this.

            Like this

            • NK
              August 20, 2013

              When you put it like that, once again anti vaxxers and chemtrails do spring to mind, so do a little anthropological study. But be careful, the stupid, it burns.

              Like this

            • J.T
              August 20, 2013

              not really condescension, you posted a link to support your statement, but conveniently ignored the most important part of the link which supported my claim, then when I pointed that out you went on some rant between states rights and slavery, taking issue with people who are states rights advocates, even though history clearly shows federalism isn’t a left/right issue (ala slavery and Lincoln).

              Can I suggest that this has more to do with Assange supporting an American politician who doesn’t fit nicely into the left/right divide…

              its confusing for those new to libertarianism…

              Like this

              • davidjackmanson
                August 20, 2013

                What is confusing (at first) is when right-wing libertarians claim that their method of politics is “beyond left and right”.

                Whenever ANYONE says their politics doesn’t fit on the left-right spectrum, it means they’re a right-winger.

                Like this

                • J.T
                  August 20, 2013

                  Opinion being past on as fact.

                  No doubt the tea party, which had its roots in the 2008 Ron Paul campaign, was hijacked by the conservative wing of the GOP, but check the political spectrum…

                  here’s a hint, Libertarian, depending on the position or issue can sit both on the left and right pf the political spectrum.

                  I’m not a right wing anything, I’m certainly a libertarian, and depending on the position I don’t care if I fall on the left or right of the spectrum.

                  The thing that’s attractive about Libertarianism isn’t its adherence to the right or left….

                  Like this

                  • davidjackmanson
                    August 20, 2013

                    You might not be informed enough about politics to understand the right-wing implications of the libertarian movement in the USA. And yes, I am talking about the REAL “Tea Party”, not the one co-opted by Republicans. The real Tea Party is even further to the Right.

                    Like this

                    • J.T
                      August 20, 2013

                      Well I worked on the Paul campaign in 08…so I understand it fairly well…

                      Here is a documentary that might demonstrate to you how much Dr Paul isn’t a part of the main stream GOP and certainly isn’t “right wing”

                      you don’t have to watch, its quite long, but it might help you understand why Assange is backing Paul…

                      Like this

          • J.T
            August 20, 2013

            ahh I get it, I know why the left suddenly doesn’t like assange…unpopular views are always unpopular- be that on the left or the right.

            don’t get emotional sister.

            Like this

            • NK
              August 20, 2013

              Herp derp herpety derp. Derp. Butthurt.

              Like this

              • J.T
                August 20, 2013

                back to 4chan you go.

                Like this

                • NK
                  August 20, 2013

                  Aww, no, you’re not condescending at all. So for you next trick shall we get some false equivalence, or maybe a little logical fallacy, some Dunning- Kruger? You’re funny. Derp.

                  Like this

                  • J.T
                    August 20, 2013

                    and I’m butt hurt?
                    Assange espoused a position you don’t agree with…that’s life.

                    Don’t get so emotional sister.

                    Like this

            • davidjackmanson
              August 20, 2013

              The reason Assange is rapidly becoming unpopular on the Left is that he takes political positions directly in opposition to left-wing positions.

              Left-wingers don’t have some sort of obligation to support Assange. They have a duty to coldly analyse what he’s all about and work out if they want to support him and work with him, or not.

              Like this

              • J.T
                August 20, 2013

                Sorry I am unaware of these position (genuinely).
                I knew Dr Paul supported Assange-he has done so publicly, it was new to me that Assange supported Dr Paul.

                What has he done that has pissed of, what I had guessed, was a core supporter base for him?

                Like this

                • davidjackmanson
                  August 20, 2013

                  Well, that’s what this whole article is about – the Wikileaks Party preferenced fascists, “mens’ rights” and the Shooters Party ahead of the Greens. Progressives who supported Wikileaks are pretty angry about that.

                  Like this

  14. NK
    August 20, 2013

    ;)

    Like this

  15. NK
    August 20, 2013

    Or go read comments at the Australian Vaccination Information Network for ten minutes (no more!): http://avn.org.au/

    Like this

  16. NK
    August 20, 2013

    Hahahahaha. Spotted it a mile off!!!! Oh go get your shots!

    Like this

  17. NK
    August 20, 2013

    Well I think your attitude towards women can probably be summed up by your continued reference to me as an “emotional sister”.

    Like this

  18. Pingback: WikiLeaks’ “Transparency” Problem – Not-So-Openly Preferring Fascists Over Working-class Parties | Independent Workers Party of Chicago

  19. Pingback: Wikileaks Party Announces “Independent Review” of Decision to Preference Fascist Party before Greens | AusVotes 2013

  20. Pingback: WikiLeaks Party Turmoil Revealed – Leslie Cannold Resigns as Julian Assange’s Running Mate in Victoria | AusVotes 2013

  21. Pingback: Texas Longhorns Men’s basketball announces 2013 schedule | Personal stuff

Comments are closed.

Information

This entry was posted on August 18, 2013 by in Political parties and politicians and tagged , , .

Click here to follow us on Twitter

twitterbird

Click here to subscribe to our RSS feed

rss-icon

Click here to subscribe to our podcast RSS feed

podcast1

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,836 other followers

%d bloggers like this: