Books Front Lines and Frontiers Mars or Bust! — First Landing by Robert Zubrin The first novel by a leading advocate for human exploration and settlement of Mars By Alan Brown | Published on February 17, 2026 Comment 0 Share New Share In this bi-weekly series reviewing classic science fiction and fantasy books, Alan Brown looks at the front lines and frontiers of the field; books about soldiers and spacers, scientists and engineers, explorers and adventurers. Stories full of what Shakespeare used to refer to as “alarums and excursions”: battles, chases, clashes, and the stuff of excitement. Today, we’ll be taking a look at First Landing, the tale of a first mission to Mars written by Robert Zubrin. Zubrin is known primarily for his non-fiction writing and his innovative views on space exploration, especially as they relate to the planet Mars. The copy I am reviewing is a hardback edition issued by Ace Books in 2001. The book’s cover seems to be intended to evoke a respectable and serious novel, with a design that emphasizes the text, and the simple illustration of a bootprint in reddish soil. I have had the book on my shelf for some time, because I had the mistaken impression it was a non-fiction book I’d already read. So, when I came across the book recently and discovered my error, I decided that two and a half decades were too long to keep it on the to-be-read pile, and cracked it open. About the Author Robert Zubrin (born 1952) is an American aerospace engineer and author, whose bold vision for space exploration has had a large impact on both the scientific world and science fiction. He has a bachelor’s degree in mathematics, a master’s degree in nuclear engineering, a master’s in aeronautics and astronautics, and a doctorate in nuclear engineering. In 1990, Zubrin, with David Baker, published a paper on what is now called the Mars Direct concept, which would use the Martian atmosphere to synthesize fuel for the trip home, significantly reducing the mass requirements for a journey to and from Mars. This would make the trip possible with current technology, and would be significantly less expensive than previous concepts. He has also been a leader in designing new propulsion and launch systems for space travel. Zubrin has authored numerous scientific papers, articles, and books on space travel and other technical topics. His best-known non-fiction book is The Case for Mars, published in 1996, which explained and argued for his Mars Direct concept. Although he is best known for his scientific and engineering writing, Zubrin is also the author of three science fiction novels. His debut First Landing, published in 2001, is based directly on the missions described in The Case for Mars. The Holy Land, published in 2003, is a satire about politics in the Middle East. The third novel, How to Live on Mars, published in 2008, is a guide written from the viewpoint of a person who lives on a human-populated Mars in the 2100s. Having gained leadership experience in the National Space Society, Zubrin established the Mars Society in 1998, with the hopes of encouraging governmental, international, and private support for missions to the planet. His concepts helped inspire Elon Musk’s goal of launching missions to Mars, although the ideas of the two have diverged in recent years. The Pull of Mars Mars has long captured the imagination of humanity, especially after 19th-century astronomers like Schiaparelli and Lowell began to map surface features like polar ice caps, dark areas that seemed to vary with seasons, and smaller features that appeared to be canals. Mars is the planet in the solar system that most closely resembles Earth. Science fiction stories about Mars proliferated, with Edgar Rice Burroughs’ pulpy tales of warrior John Carter being among the most popular (I’ve reviewed some of those books here, here, and here). Since then, Mars has continued to play a major role in science fiction, so it’s no surprise that I found quite a number of Mars-centric tales in my previous reviews for this column. These range from serious and scientific to pulpy adventure tales and even to slapstick, and include (but are not limited to): Ben Bova’s Mars; Robert Heinlein’s Red Planet, Stranger in a Strange Land, Podkayne of Mars; Arthur Clarke’s Sands of Mars; Ray Bradbury’s collection Martian Chronicles; Carey Rockwell’s Tom Corbett, Space Cadet: Stand By for Mars!; Fredric Brown’s whimsical Martians Go Home; the collection Old Mars edited by Gardner Dozois and George R.R. Martin; a number of novels and stories from Leigh Brackett including Eric John Stark: Outlaw of Mars, and The Sword of Rhiannon; some of the adventures of C.L. Moore’s Northwest Smith; and some of the stories from The Best of Stanley G. Weinbaum. As a youngster, I was keenly interested in space travel, a passion fed by a diet of science fiction, and especially by a series of documentaries from the Walt Disney Corporation, which first aired on the Disneyland show, were repeated over the years on television, and were often shown in school science classes by substitute teachers. These included “Man in Space,” “Man and the Moon,” and especially “Mars and Beyond.” At the time, I was convinced that it was just a matter of time before spaceships were launched to take us to Mars. That optimism stayed strong as the space program brought us to the moon, but waned when the Apollo program fell prey to budget cuts in the 1970s, and when space probes and rovers showed Mars to be far less hospitable than had previously been thought. In the late 20th century, however, there was renewed interest in missions to Mars. Robert Zubrin was right at the center of this, with his innovative ideas that capitalized on using the Martian atmosphere to make oxygen and water for explorers while on the planet, and to make fuel for their return to Earth. Private launch systems spearheaded by billionaires like Musk and Bezos, which focus on reusable systems, promise to reduce the cost per pound of putting material into orbit. Additional countries are joining the previously small club of space-faring nations. There is a sense that humanity could be on the cusp of an era of renewed exploration, which might include missions and even bases on the Moon, trips to resource-rich asteroids, and journeys to Mars itself. First Landing Zubrin’s influence on the science fiction field was apparent before I even opened this book—after all, what other first-time novelist can boast cover blurbs from folks like Gregory Benford, Kevin J. Anderson, Buzz Aldrin, Carl Sagan, and Arthur C. Clarke? Like many other Mars novels, First Landing skips the boredom of traveling between the planets, and starts right as the spaceship Beagle approaches its destination. But the tether system that gives the crew a simulation of gravity by spinning the craft during the journey will not release, and there is a last-minute spacewalk to free the recalcitrant system. The astronaut loses contact with the ship, only to be saved by the pilot, who brings the airlock close enough for her to enter just as the edge of the Martian atmosphere begins to buffet the ship. And then, with the planned reentry out the window and crew members thrashing about in their quarters, the pilot throws the mission parameters out the window and lands successfully by the seat of his pants. It is all very exciting, but had me wondering why the de-tethering had not been done days before, and why no one is strapped down for the re-entry maneuver. Knowing Zubrin’s engineering background, I expected something a bit more measured and realistic, not a passage that read like a pulp adventure story. The crew is a small one, and at least for me, initially the characters felt a bit thin. The Mission Commander is Colonel Andrew Townsend, USAF, a daring fighter pilot, and the only married member of the crew. The co-pilot and flight engineer is Army Major Gwen Llewellyn, a decorated combat veteran and helicopter pilot from Georgia who is a Christian fundamentalist given to quoting the King James Version of the Bible. The geologist is the abrasive Luke Johnson, placed on the mission through the political influence of Texas politicians. The doctor and biologist is Rebecca Sherman, a liberal and an entitled graduate of Radcliffe, Cornell, and Harvard. And the final member of the crew, a last-minute substitute for a chemist, is historian Professor Kevin McGee, who has been put on the crew to promote public relations efforts and document the mission. To put it bluntly, the crew gets along like oil and water, bickering constantly. There is a reference to them concealing their differences from NASA because of their desire to be included on the mission, but those differences seem too significant to have been overlooked. Gwen and Rebecca despise each other, Luke rubs everyone the wrong way, and even after a long voyage, Kevin is seen as an interloper by the others. They even fight over who gets to step onto the surface of Mars first, as if that wouldn’t have been determined by NASA long before their arrival. There are also some odd choices in clothing and gear that struck me as impractical. The Colonel wears a leather pilot’s jacket and peaked military cap like he was flying a WWII bomber. Gwen keeps a Bowie knife attached to her leg, which seems an impractically large blade for use aboard a spaceship (a multitool would be more practical, and more in character for an engineer). Luke wears cowboy boots (and other than the boots specifically designed as part of spacesuits, I can’t ever remember any situation where an astronaut wore boots in a spaceship). These items seem to be included to give the characters more personality, but feel unrealistic. Then the narrative turns to exploration. There is more bickering about who gets to use the rover first, with an argument between Luke and Rebecca about which discipline is more important, geology or biology, and the practicality of searching for life. Again, this seems like something that would have been decided and planned out long in advance. The Colonel decides to send out Gwen and Kevin on a sightseeing and photographic mission. And here Zubrin’s narrative begins to find its footing, and he does a great job describing their efforts, and the planet itself. They set up a small greenhouse, both to add variety to their diets and to prove the ability of humans on Mars to sustain themselves. On additional rover missions, Luke finds gemstones with no equivalent on Earth. And Rebecca soon makes an exciting discovery: There is life on Mars. It is a primitive pre-cellular form of life, adapted for harsh conditions, but it is life. The discovery of life kicks off some political sub-plots back on Earth. Gary Stetson, a self-help author and philosopher, sees an opportunity to draw more attention to himself (and make more money), and argues that the returning astronauts could bring a deadly plague back to Earth, and soon anti-science “eco-goths” take up the cry of “Keep Earth green, and keep Mars red.” He makes common cause with a fundamentalist preacher, Reverend Stone, who also opposes space exploration and is also motivated more by self-enrichment than moral reasons. And the craven U.S. president, who had previously supported the mission, decides that the question over efforts to bring the mission home will be left up to Congress. The political issues were not very compelling to me, as the antagonists felt more like pulp villains than well-realized characters. At the same time, a saboteur at NASA’s Mission Control in Houston uploads a program that empties the return vehicle’s fuel tanks. They can’t prove his actions conclusively, but he is dismissed. Another NASA employee, however, is approached by a presidential candidate who opposes the incumbent, and is promised political favors if he helps with additional sabotage to discredit the current administration. So, the bickering astronauts have additional challenges to face, and frequently suspect each other of causing the sabotage. The process of replenishing the fuel tank from the atmosphere cannot be completed before the launch window for their return closes, so they begin searching for water under the surface. And, like the other passages about exploration, this section of the book is among its strongest elements, as the crew works together to cobble together sensors to locate potential underground deposits, and then drill to find the water they need. I will not go into too many details, as I don’t want to spoil the rest of the story for those who might want to read the book. The crew must get over their differences and replenish their fuel with the clock ticking. Their small greenhouse cannot support the entire crew until the next launch window opens, so this is a life-or-death effort. There is more sabotage to contend with, including the destruction of a computer component essential to their launch, which triggers a desperate trek across the valleys of Mars to get a replacement from a vehicle NASA had landed to support future missions. NASA must find the additional saboteur who is still sending malicious code to the explorers, while politicians must overcome the opposition to the mission’s return, which includes demands that the ship be destroyed to prevent contaminating the Earth. The descriptions of the crew’s efforts to survive are compelling enough to counterbalance the implausibility of the political sub-plots, and the book barrels its way to an enjoyable conclusion. Final Thoughts First Landing felt a little stiff in the beginning, with thinly drawn characters, some over-the-top situations, and the recycling of some tired tropes, but Zubrin’s enthusiasm for his topic is contagious, and his description of the planet and its exploration is compelling. By the end of the book, I was turning pages more enthusiastically, and ended up enjoying the read. And now I’d like to hear from you: If you’ve read First Landing, what did you think? And what are your thoughts on Zubrin’s ambitious plans for missions to Mars, and even the establishment of colonies, in the near future?[end-mark] The post Mars or Bust! — <i>First Landing</i> by Robert Zubrin appeared first on Reactor.

California Legislature: Nothing to See Here, Move Along

Punk Rock and the Anti-Communist Film Festival

Its heart alone could weigh 16 kilograms.

Those with a higher affinity for one color were less likely to change their mind when influenced by their peers.

HBO’s John Oliver waited until Sunday to kick off the 2026 season of Last Week Tonight and quickly fell in with the rest of the late night comedians in going after ICE. During his denunciation ritual, Oliver would praise Democrats for shutting down the Department of Homeland Security and call for ICE to be defunded and done away with. Oliver cued up a video by lamenting ICE’s recent budget increases, “Because DHS’s resources are now being pointed at immigration more heavily than ever before to the point it’s being called ‘a veritable Department of Deportation.’ ICE alone was handed an extra $75 billion to spend over Trump's term, tripling its annual budget and leading to this startling fact.” In the video, the narrator joined Oliver in mourning, “Overnight, it became the highest-funded law enforcement agency in U.S. history. If ICE was a military, it would be the 17th richest in the world, worth about the same as Canada's entire armed forces.”   John Oliver kicked off his 2026 season by declaring "whatever the appropriate budget for ICE is—and they're making a pretty compelling argument for it being zero right now" while later praising Democrats for shutting down DHS, "So what can we do? Well, first, and most… pic.twitter.com/wNKtsFIw5U — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 17, 2026   Oliver reacted by echoing the Canada analogy while also suggesting ICE should be defunded, “It's true! And whatever the appropriate budget for ICE is—and they're making a pretty compelling argument for it being zero right now—one thing it should definitely not be is the same as the entire Canadian military. Though to be fair, that's not a perfect one-to-one, as I'm pretty sure the Canadian military doesn't totally eat shit on slightly slippery sidewalks.” ICE receiving roughly the same amount of money as the Canadian military says more about Canadian politicians than it does ICE. Nevertheless, Oliver was far from finished. Later, Oliver praised Democrats for their partial government shutdown, “So what can we do? Well, first, and most immediately, with DHS in partial shutdown over its funding, Democrats have to use every ounce of leverage they've got to get major concessions. Bernie Sanders has proposed an amendment that would repeal the $75 billion in additional funding that ICE received, and I don’t know if they'll be able to get all the way to that. They should at the very least get as many hard, enforceable limits on immigration agents' activities as possible.” While Oliver wants the men and women of FEMA, the Coast Guard, and the TSA—not to mention any American travelers who may have to deal with TSA delays—to suffer so that he can stomp his feet on TV, he also doubled down on the idea that ICE has got to go: Now, second, we need to get rid of ICE, period. Public trust in it right now is hovering somewhere between Purdue Pharma and the Titan submersible. It is just not salvageable. And if you're thinking, who will enforce immigration law if ICE is gone? I don’t know, maybe the agencies that did it for decades before 2003. As for DHS as a whole, I would argue it's no longer tenable in its current form. And while maybe there's an argument for having a larger agency coordinating different federal departments, it should probably be redesigned from the ground up, and deliberately this time, not by suddenly gluing together org charts in a blind panic. Interestingly, Oliver would later concede that even if ICE went away and a DOJ-led INS was brought back, immigration laws would still be on the books, which raises the question: if John Oliver had his way, what would immigration law look like? On Sunday, that was a question Oliver was unwilling to consider. Here is a transcript for the February 15 show: HBO Last Week Tonight with John Oliver 2/15/2026 11:41 PM ET JOHN OLIVER: Because DHS’s resources are now being pointed at immigration more heavily than ever before to the point it’s being called “a veritable Department of Deportation.” ICE alone was handed an extra $75 billion to spend over Trump's term, tripling its annual budget and leading to this startling fact. NARRATOR: Overnight, it became the highest-funded law enforcement agency in U.S. history. If ICE was a military, it would be the 17th richest in the world, worth about the same as Canada's entire armed forces. OLIVER: It's true! And whatever the appropriate budget for ICE is—and they're making a pretty compelling argument for it being zero right now—one thing it should definitely not be is the same as the entire Canadian military. Though to be fair, that's not a perfect one-to-one, as I'm pretty sure the Canadian military doesn't totally eat shit on slightly slippery sidewalks. … So what can we do? Well, first, and most immediately, with DHS in partial shutdown over its funding, Democrats have to use every ounce of leverage they've got to get major concessions. Bernie Sanders has proposed an amendment that would repeal the $75 billion in additional funding that ICE received, and I don’t know if they'll be able to get all the way to that. They should at the very least get as many hard, enforceable limits on immigration agents' activities as possible. Now, second, we need to get rid of ICE, period. Public trust in it right now is hovering somewhere between Purdue Pharma and the Titan submersible. It is just not salvageable. And if you're thinking, who will enforce immigration law if ICE is gone? I don’t know, maybe the agencies that did it for decades before 2003. As for DHS as a whole, I would argue it's no longer tenable in its current form. And while maybe there's an argument for having a larger agency coordinating different federal departments, it should probably be redesigned from the ground up, and deliberately this time, not by suddenly gluing together org charts in a blind panic.

Unlike their January 26 interview with our friend and conservative talk radio host Dana Loesch, Monday’s CBS Mornings brought on House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) for what became seven minutes of hits from the left on the Epstein files, voter integrity, and demands for Republicans “compromis[ing]” to the Democratic position on Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) “reforms.” Featured co-host Vladimir Duthiers also did the Loesch segment, but this time he came loaded for bear, first arguing “Congress appears to be in no hurry to end the latest partial government shutdown” with Republican refusing to acquiesce to Democrat proposals for “major changes” to ICE. His first question to Emmer was asking what point(s) are Republicans willing to give to Democrats: “Democrats are asking for ICE agents to show I.D.s, to wear body cameras and stop wearing masks, among other reforms. What are Republicans willing to compromise on?” Along with dispatching with the body cameras demand by noting it’s already been funded, Emmer addressed the demands for officers to be identified by acknowledging Democrats want ICE agents to be found out, “but they don’t think people should show an ID to vote.” WATCH: Today's example of how CBS News has yet to really change under Bari Weiss. Here was seven minutes on 'CBS Mornings' of GOP House Whip Tom Emmer (MN) being berated about Epstein, voting, and demanding the GOP "compromise" to the Democratic position on warrants to arrest… pic.twitter.com/bzvB6CjZCP — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 16, 2026 Not said by Emmer was also the fact that being able to identify officers without masks and adding names would allow lefty protesters (i.e. CBS viewers) to search for ICE agents and protest outside their homes, harass their families, or worse. Duthiers defended this ask because “when [Democrats are] asking for IDs they don’t mean identification in the way that we as ordinary Americans carry them” and instead want “badge number that a police officer would have, not wearing a mask, because there is no way to know an officer who is arresting you who they are, just if they are showing a face.” Duthiers next wondered what Republicans are doing to get Democrats to negotiate, again framing the shutdown as belonging to Republicans and Democrats not needing to budge (click “expand”): DUTHIERS: So do you know what was in the White House’s proposal that the Democrats have rejected? And are you part of the meetings to work through this with the Democrats? Is The White House telling you what is in the bill? EMMER: Vlad, the House did our job. We have an agreement. My position is the Senate should pass the bill that we already passed. The federal law enforcement issue involving Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, they are already funded based on the bill that was signed into law last July through 2029. All the Democrats are doing right now is trying to shut down TSA, the Coast Guard, FEMA, disaster relief. DUTHIERS: Are you talking to them? It sounds like you’re not talking to them? EMMER: Are — the White House? DUTHIERS: To the Democrats. EMMER: The President is the chief negotiator and is working directly with Senate Democrats. DUTHIERS: So, you’re not talking to Democrats. EMMER: We’ve done our job, Vlad. DUTHIERS: Okay. EMMER: I mean, that would suggest that there’s more to do on the House side. Again, this was an agreement between Democrats and Republicans on the House side that the Senate Democrats decided they were not going to honor. DUTHIERS: Right. EMMER: So, that’s an issue that the President and the Senate Democrats have been negotiating. The CBS liberal shifted to the Epstein files which, through Saturday, CBS’s flagship newscasts have spent 309 minutes obsessing over since July. Here again, Duthiers set up the discussion on Democratic terms by wondering if he’s “satisfied with” the release of the files and if “enough has been done by the Justice Department.” When Emmer replied this level of focus was nowhere to be found in the first Trump administration or the Biden administration, Duthiers discounted that by citing Epstein files cheerleader Ro Khana (D-CA) having expressed regret. Emmer then continued: [W]ell, if you let me finish on this, so if this is the only administration that has been pushing to release it all, this is the ultimate transparency. All of these documents that have been put out, I think millions of documents the DOJ has been doing their best job to make sure that victims are protected, while at the same time, the American public have access to everything that’s in those. I think everybody agrees, regardless of your political persuasion, that Jeffrey Epstein was an awful human being and that these victims deserve to be — they need to be verified. Duthiers predictably cited Republican Thomas Massie (R-KY) as suggesting “more investigations” must be done “into people whose names were protected in...redactions,” but Emmer wasn’t having any of it by demanding Massie be specific and not continue to be vague. Duthiers’s final two topics concerned voter integrity and blaming the lack of faith in government on the operations of ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in Minneapolis (click “expand”): The President has spoken about elections being nationalized, meaning moving control of elections from the states to the federal government. Do you think that that is a constitutional policy? And where do you stand on that? (....) Last question, you and I were talking backstage a little before we came on the air, the President’s claims, the false claims about fraud in America, the tragic deaths of two Americans at the hands of federal agents, the questions about using the Justice Department for personal retaliation. We were talking about, is there a point where you can see this country coming together again the way that perhaps we were? Do you feel that the general public is losing faith in our government institutions? While bringing Emmer on could be cited as proof of diversity amongst guests, the response would be there’s a long way to go on that and, if that were to be achieved, perhaps the Bari Weiss-led network would be well deserved to press Democrats in the same way Republicans like Emmer are as opposed to tripping over themselves to sing the praises of liberals (like last week with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson). To see the relevant CBS transcript from February 17, click here.

The Department of Justice belatedly released a massive trove of documents related to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein last month. The documents provide damning insights into the dead pedophile as well as his network of former business associates and friends.One of the affluent individuals whose name comes up repeatedly in the Epstein files is Thomas Pritzker — cousin of Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker — who has served as executive chairman of the Hyatt Hotels Corporation since August 2004.'Good stewardship also means protecting Hyatt.'The 75-year-old billionaire revealed to the board of the hotel chain on Monday that he was retiring, effective immediately, to protect Hyatt from the fallout of his relationship with the dead pedophile.In his letter to the board, which was reviewed by the New York Times, Pritzker said that "good stewardship also means protecting Hyatt, particularly in the context of my association with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, which I deeply regret."Pritzker noted further that he "exercised terrible judgment in maintaining contact with them, and there is no excuse for failing to distance myself sooner."The retiring Hyatt executive chairman appears to have maintained a friendship and remained in frequent contact with Epstein long after the sex offender pleaded guilty to procuring a child for prostitution.In the newly released Epstein files, the email address accompanying Pritzker's name is frequently redacted. However in some cases, it is crossed out but still visible.RELATED: 'Smoking Gun': Yale prof nearly blown up by Unabomber defends his Epstein emails Photo by Joe Schildhorn/Patrick McMullan via Getty ImageRichard Tuttle, chair of the Hyatt board's nominating and corporate governance committee, said in a statement, "Tom’s leadership has been instrumental in shaping Hyatt’s strategy and long-term growth, and we thank him for his service and dedication to Hyatt."Mark Hoplamazian, Hyatt's president and CEO, has stepped into the role left open by the Epstein associate.Pritzker is among a growing list of individuals whose relationships with Epstein have earned them heightened scrutiny and professional consequences. After new details about their relationships and/or communications with Epstein came to light:Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem resigned as chairman and chief executive of the global ports operator DP World;David Gelernter, a Yale University computer science professor who lost a few fingers opening a package sent by the Unabomber, defended a controversial correspondence he had with Epstein and was barred from teaching classes at the university;Peter Mandelson, a prominent Labour Party figure who was appointed Britain's ambassador to the U.S. in 2024 by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, resigned in disgrace from the House of Lords while his protege stepped down as Starmer's right-hand man;Kathy Ruemmler said she was resigning as Goldman Sach's chief legal officer;Brad Karp resigned as chairman of the top U.S. law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP;U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was grilled in a Senate hearing about his 2012 meeting with Epstein at the pedophile's island;New York Giants co-owner Steve Tisch, who NFL commissioner Roger Goodell indicated might ultimately face an internal investigation, admitted to a "brief association where we exchanged emails about adult women, and in addition, we discussed movies, philanthropy, and investments";Letty Moss-Salentijn was stripped of her administrative duties at Columbia University's College of Dental Medicine;Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York and former wife of ex-prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, saw her charity, Sarah's Trust, shuttered; andThorbjørn Jagland, Norway's former prime minister, was charged with aggravated corruption.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In an important development in the investigation into Nancy Guthrie's disappearance, investigators have cleared several people from the suspect list — including one person who had been heavily scrutinized since Guthrie was first reported missing on February 1. The New York Post reported on Monday that investigators have ruled out Nancy Guthrie's family from any suspicion in connection with her disappearance. 'The family has been nothing but cooperative and gracious and are victims in this case.'“The Guthrie family — to include all siblings and spouses — has been cleared as possible suspects in this case,” Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos said Monday, according to Post.“The family has been nothing but cooperative and gracious and are victims in this case,” he added. “To suggest otherwise is not only wrong, it is cruel. The Guthrie family are victims, plain and simple.”RELATED: 'It's never too late': Savannah Guthrie posts gut-wrenching video update two weeks after mother's disappearance Photo by Jan Sonnenmair/Getty ImagesInvestigators have thus ruled out Nancy's children, Savannah, Annie, and Camron, as anything other than victims.Also included on this list is Annie's husband, Tommaso Cioni, who was reportedly the last person to see Nancy Guthrie alive on January 31. Prior to this development, Nanos said that he "understands" that Cioni would be subject to suspicion but warned people not to jump to rash judgments without evidence. “I understand the pundits are out there. They’re gonna say, 'Well, he’s the last one to see her alive.' We understand that stuff. But, my goodness, you’re putting a mark on somebody who could be completely innocent. And more important than that, he’s family," Nanos said, according to the New York Post. Cioni last saw Nancy around 9:45 p.m. on January 31 after he and Annie had dinner with her, according to reports. Though a few people were detained by a SWAT team near Nancy's house in Tucson, Arizona, in connection with the investigation late last week, no one has yet been a named as a suspect. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The song, featured prominently in the 1972 thriller, was used without the permission of its composer. There's actually only one banjo used. The post ‘Dueling Banjos’ From ‘Deliverance’: An Unlikely Hit appeared first on Best Classic Bands.