Posts Tagged ‘United States’
Capitalism, Communism, Freedom
January 11, 2012 | 
Author “Capitalism” is a word coined by Karl Marx to label a social condition where the “means of production” are controlled by a limited number of people who by hook or crook have compiled large sums of “capital” that they use for acquiring political power. Once, the politicians have been used to create laws to eliminate competition and further consolidate the means of production, those who live outside the “capital” class are essentially enslaved because the laws protect large concerns at the expense of the individual.
Many “Conservatives” think capitalism is a good thing, or even a desired thing. Capitalism as described by Marx and presented above is essentially the system we have in place in the United States today. Having said that capitalism IS NOT, the social system that built the United States, and didn’t even exist in the United States until after the civil war. Capitalism began in earnest in the United States with the trans-continental railroad, the first American “Public Private Partnership”. From the 1860′s on Capitalism has slowly edged out the social system set up by agreement of the “people”, with the US Constitution.
Capitalism as described above does in fact contain all the evils that Marx described, it does in fact lead to consolidated power in the hands of the few, for the exploitation of the many. Marx proposed a solution to ills of capitalism which sought to eliminate the private “ownership” of the means of production in exchange for the communal ownership of practically everything. The general idea is, if everybody is equal “rich” or “poor” no combinations of capital can exist to corrupt the political process, thereby ensuring a higher level of happiness among th highest number of people. The main problem with Marx’s communist (socialist) system is that it just doesn’t work. Marx discounted the power of human nature to be self-serving. Though he did account for the fact that 30% of the population would never submit to a collectivist regime, he solves this problem by murdering them. Once the people who believe in private ownership are out-of-the-way, the rest of ‘us’ can live in collectivist utopia, that was his theory anyway. However in reality, once you eliminate the 30% a sort of “political capitalism” begin to form. Instead of cash or capital being used to consolidate political power, murder is used. Murder becomes the new capital. If you take a look at the great socialist societies you will see this as true.
Having stated that, the next question is if capitalism sucks and socialism is worse, what should we do, how should society be organized to create the maximum benefit for the most people?
The reality is; ‘Humans are so screwed up, we can’t be organised for maximum benefit’. Any social system that is imposed will eventually devolve into the ‘capitalism’ as described by Marx. The only real solution, to the problem of organising society is to NOT, organise it. All that is needed is a general agreement about what is acceptable behavior and what is not. These should be basic ‘common law’ style guidelines. Other than that people should be ‘FREE’. It is not the accumulation of cash that creates the social ills described by Marx but the USE of cash to accumulate political power. Think of this, two men meet on the street, one man has a sack of cash and the other has 2 bucks, in a free society is one more ‘powerful’ than the other?
The answer is NO, so long as the bigger sack of cash can’t buy political power. It’s not the cash that creates the oppression, but the political power that cash buys. If I can create laws through the use of my cash to enslave you then I’m dangerous, but if the LAW protects both you and me equally the fact that I have a bigger sack of cash becomes irrelevant. The real cause if social ills is not therefore te accumulation of capital in the hands of a few, but rather the accumulation of political power.
The social system set up in the United States, began as one of strictly ‘limited’ political power. If you take the time to read the US Constitution, you will clearly see it is a document that seeks to fetter political power. Power in the United States was meant to be diffuse so as to maximise individual freedom, thereby eliminating the enslaving effects of unfettered capitalism.
To maximise the potential of every individual thereby allowing the best standard of living for the most people, we need to maximise ‘freedom’. The only way to do that is to ‘minimize’ government.
A government that is so weak it is NOT worth corrupting, will never become corrupt. The real solution to eliminate the ills of capitalism is NOT to create a socialist mega-government, which incidentally will become MORE corrupt the more power it consolidates, but rather to eliminate the parts of government that can be corrupted. The answer to the enslaving tendencies of capitalism as defined by Marx is NOT to shift the slavery to a mega government, but to eliminate the political power that makes the enslaving tendency of capital possible.
In short Freedom is the answer.
Walmartization?
I recently read an article that was very negative about the effects Wal-mart has had on the economy. I would link the article, however it was full of so many mis-statements and downright twisting of statistics I think it a disservice to the reader to subject them to the class warfare nonsense.
Rather, it seems better to just pose the question is Wal-Mart good for the US?
I have personal experience with the destruction Wal-Mart can have on a community, having said that destruction is not always a bad thing. My father owned a rather large sporting goods store in a small community, it was roughly the size of a Big 5 store with a mix of goods tended toward hunting and fishing. The store was very prosperous, I won’t go into the numbers because it is irrelevant but it was prosperous. That little store provided a good living for my father and three “nowhere dead-end” jobs suitable for retirees or highschool kids which I was at the time. Having said that, the only person at that store who could have been considered a “career” person would have been the owner. The rest of us were just biding our time or working for pocket cash as in the case of the “part-timers” my father employed.
That little store was put out of business by Wal-Mart, our store simply could not compete with Wal-marts buying power, and we bought “wholesale” at the same prices Wal-Mart sold retail. No matter what we did we couldn’t figure out how to go toe to toe with them, as for many items we sold price was the determining factor. So in the case of this illustration Wal-Mart was “Bad” for my father but was it bad for the community in general?
At the time I was getting paid $5 bucks an hour some of the other employees were paid more. Walmart’s entry-level pay was $9, they employed about 100 people in all skill levels along the pay curve. Many people began work there after quitting other lower paying jobs. So the net effect in our community was; several boutique style stores went out of business, hurting their owners but benefiting their employees as they were now employed by the Wal-Mart, at high wages with the option of career advancement, something that is not available in any small business.
The lower prices and higher service walmart provided raised the standard of living in the community by lowering the cost of everyday goods. Allowing their customers more disposable income. Within a year of Wal-Mart a bunch of “new” businesses opened, mainly restaurants. No doubt a result of the extra disposable income created by the savings on necessities that Wal-Mart brought.
So the net result of Wal-Mart was actually positive! Far from destroying small business Wal-Mart created opportunities for business that would not have existed without them. If you ask my dad today I think he would agree even though he is still chagrined by the loss of his store.
The Non-Socialist Pledge of Allegiance
“I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation under GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
The pledge should be changed as pledging allegiance to a flag doesn’t mean anything and leaves the “pledger” open to manipulation. Symbols can mean anything you want them too. However the US Constitution, is a document which has real intrinsic meaning. By pledging allegiance to it you can read and understand what you are committing yourself too.
By pledging allegiance to the republic it established, you are aligning yourself to ITS form of government, which is clearly defined.
I hope you all agree.
Posted in Pledge of Allegiance | 
Tags: Administration, Ali, Allegiance, American culture, Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance, Human Interest, Islam, Nationalism, Nationality, Oaths of allegiance, Pledge of Allegiance, Political philosophy, Politics, Religion, Religion/Belief, Religious Heritage of America, United States, Vexillology | 
No Comments »
4rth Amendment Funnies
The other day June 17th, I was driving through Texas, headed north out of McAllen. When I came upon a border patrol check point. For those of you who don’t live in the southwest, a border patrol check point is a road block where the US border patrol asks you where you were born and where you are going, they usually have a drug dog there to passively sniff out your car.
Generally I drive through these incident free, a typical inspection is as follows;
BP Agent “Are you a citizen?”
Myself ” Yes”
BP Agent ”Where are you headed?”
Myself ”wherever I happen to be going”
BP Agent ”Are You Alone?”
Myself ” No my wife is with me she is a citizen also”
BP Agent “OK have a nice trip”
You then drive off.
My general view of these sort of blanket inspections within the interior of the U.S., is that they violate the 4rth amendment.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I find it hard to believe that it is “reasonable” to ask everyone driving north out of Texas whether they are a citizen or not, and where they are going. Mind you that this is “NOT” taking place at the border or at the port of entry, but rather 100 miles or so north of the border well within the US. Most of the time I look on these inspections as just a petty nuisance and nothing more, so long as the BP Agent doesn’t ball bust.
However on the 17th, the BP was in true ball busting form. My wife was with me as usual, she was sleeping in the back of the vehicle which also is typical. The agent asked me if I was alone, I responded with the typical, “No sir, my wife is in the back sleeping and she is a citizen also.”
The agent wasn’t satisfied with this and said ” Wake her up so I can verify her citizenship”
“No sir” said I ” I told you she was a citizen”
“You have to wake her up, so I can ask her” he retorted.
“I’m not going to wake her, I told you she’s a citizen”
“Ok, pull over there and sit until you decide to wake her up” he directed me over to secondary inspection spot. I pulled on over, sat there a minute, and then started to get mad. I grabbed my wallet, hopped out of the vehicle and headed over to the BP trailer, to talk with a supervisor. I was met halfway by 3 agents, one of them had Lieutenants bars, he introduced himself as the shift supervisor. As we walked back to my vehicle, I explained what had happened and told him I was not going to wake my wife, I told him she was a citizen and I was a citizen. Me saying that should be enough anyway, since the highway checkpoint violated the 4rth amendment to begin with.
He responded he didn’t want to get into a constitutional debate with me, but the check point is not a violation, agreed that the debate would be useless, since he obviously believes what he is doing is OK otherwise he would be doing it. I also added that stopping every car on the highway doesn’t seem very “reasonable” to me which is the Constitutional standard. His response was just to smile and say wake up your wife, so I can ask her if she’s a citizen and you can go on your way.
“I will not sir, I have already told you she’s a citizen and that should suffice, unless you have established probable cause or have a sworn affidavit that my wife and I are engaged in illegal activities you have no reason at all to justify having even stopped me”
He seemed surprised by this answer, told me he did not need probable cause to search but only reasonable suspicion. My response to him was that no doubt you were told that in your training,, but reasonable suspicion is not the constitutional phrasing, and in any case I would not wake my wife. He then went into a long explanation about all the drug runners they catch, and illegal aliens they catch at this checkpoint using these methods. I gave him no argument on those points, I even went on to say I totally understand his point of view which I do, but the effectiveness of these checkpoints doesn’t make them legal or proper. And in any case if his “Border Patrolling” expertise makes him reasonably suspicious, I’m doing anything “Illegal” he must be getting rusty. With this he smiled and the 2 rookies with him kind of laughed.
They seemed to be entertained by the ‘Curious’ person insisting that they are violating his rights. By this time I was so mad I was shaking, but was still measured and polite with my responses. He asked why I was shaking, I told him I thought it was adrenaline cause “I’m pissed off at being rousted”.
We went on like this for a few minutes, where he went on to say all us Vets, especially Vietnam vets go nuts when they come through one of these checkpoints, but that most of the agents were veterans so we should cut them some slack. I never told him I was a Vet, but in general military vets aren’t to hard to spot anyway so I’m not surprised he assumed I was. He then asked me again to wake my wife, I again refused. He said if I refused he would arrest me search my vehicle and wake here anyway.
I told him, I would not consent to a vehicle search under any circumstance, but if he was going to arrest me that was his call I won’t resist and in fact I was happy to be arrested. I added that I though failing to wake your wife was not a very serious charge. He turned me around asked if I had any weapons, did a quick pat down. Then he walked over to my truck, I asked him, “So am I under arrest?” he replied “Yes”. I said ok, I still do not consent to a vehicle search and as far as I knew “Not consenting to a search does not establish probable cause or even reasonable suspicion”. I guess he decided not to search but rather just slapped the side of the vehicle until my wife open the door, I was not privy to their conversation but she told me, he asked if she was a citizen and then told her I don’t know why your husband is so upset but you can go back to sleep.
He came back over to me and he again tried to explain the BPs point of view, I said I had no doubt at all what he was telling me was true but my point is not the effectiveness of what they’re doing but the constitutionality of it, which it is clearly not. As law enforcement officers and citizens it is imperative for them to be on the side of citizens and not politicians. That they should not just blindly enforce a policy they know to be unconstitutional even if it is borderline. I said I have no doubt of their good intentions, but that is not terribly relevant as I was the one who was under arrest, for doing nothing wrong or even illegal.
We talked around that for a few minutes, he then asked where I was from, ”California” I replied.
The lead agent replied, “Your from California huh, we get alot of you ‘Constitutionalist Movement’ guys complaining at us in California and Arizona, may I see your driver’s license.” He took my license and one of the other agents copied my info into his note-book.
I said, “OK I don’t know what that is, but ok.”
He then returned my license and said “Ok you can go”,
I said “alright, I have just one more thing for you guys before I leave, have you guys had a chance to read ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich‘?” they all shook their heads no. “Before Hitler, Germany was a constitutional republic, Hitler destroyed the republic by getting cops to violate people’s rights. This is not my opinion but historical fact, it was not some invading force of nazi thugs that rounded up all the jews and homos and political opposition, it was the regular police, the Berlin Police department, the Munich police dept, regular guys like you, who did what they were told even though it was illegal under German law at the time. Next thing you know 9 million people have been rounded up, and the world was at war, you guys ought to read it. Cause maybe in 10 or 15 years you will be in that position.”
They then sent me on my way.
It occurred to me while driving how odd it was to be accused of being in the “Constitutionalist Movement”, I had never heard that before. Now that I think about, I’m sure Napalitano over at homeland security has anybody who invokes their rights labeled as a “Constitutionalist” and part of a subversive movement. The BP Agent, said it like it was something they had been briefed to look out for. My wife’s brother is a sheriff deputy in Fl, so she called him to relate the story, he told her he was aware of the “Constitutionalist Movement” that there were a bunch of them in Fl. He thought they basically believed in ignoring laws and doing what they wanted under the guise of the constitution but he wasn’t sure.
This conversation confirms my suspicion about Homeland Security flagging people as constitutionalists, if they invoke their rights. So I guess I’m part of a movement I was ignorant of until I was told I was in the movement. It is also strange to me that he didn’t ask to see any ID, until he mentioned the “Constitutionalists”, I have no doubt now that I am enshrined on some list of subversives hidden in Napalitano’s drawer. It’s a good thing I don’t fly.
Posted in General Idiocy, Tea Party | Tags: Affirmation in law, Border Patrol Check Point, BP Plc, Constitutionalist Movement, Criminal law, Evidence law, fourth amendment, Hitler, Human Interest, Law, law enforcement officers, Probable cause, Process of the accused person, Rights of the accused, Search and seizure, seizures, Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, Texas, United States, United States Constitution, unlawful searches, vehicle search | No Comments »
“Pure Goldwater” is a Good Read
As a Gen-Xer, Barry Goldwater was a tad before my time. I wanted to learn more about him as he is occasionally still mentioned by conservatives.
I am reading the book “Pure Goldwater” which is a compendium of Senator Goldwater’s journals speeches and other writings. I find it very informative, much of it is first person, and begins with a letter he wrote when he was 14.
It is interesting to know that not everyone who lived through “The Great Depression” thought F. Roosevelt was a hero. There is a letter to the editor written by Goldwater which is very informative, written during the FDR Presidency. Laying out FDR’s campaign promises and then showing his actions which were exactly opposite of what he said he would do.
Most people are not aware that FDR ran as a conservative, he lambasted H. Hoover for being a big government meddler. Once in office, he doubled down and continued Hoovers meddling ways. Thanks to reading “The Forgotten Man” by Amity Schleas, my eyes were open to the falsehoods I was taught in public schools about FDR. I’m heartened to see a contemporary report about what a boob FDR was. Goldwater’s letter to the editor was worth the price of the book alone.
I hope you all get a chance to read it.
Please forgive my editing I’m posting from my phone.
Job Creation
Today we had quite a surprise on the “Unemployment Front”, the number of new jobs came in at 30% of estimates. That is like ordering a Wendy’s Triple with cheese and being slipped a single value burger.
The Obama Administration’s spokesperson came out and agreed the number was dismal, and then went on to tout “green jobs” and “infrastructure growth” her basic assumption is that government jobs = growth in the economy.
All government jobs are “Vampire Jobs” in order for government jobs to exist they have to “Feed” of the private sector. Some of what the government does is actually necessary, but most of it is not. Most government jobs are created not because of civic need, as in police officers, firemen, and military, but because of useless government meddling. As an example, the DMV is NOT a necessary function of government, would not your car run just as well without a license plate?
The vast majority of government jobs are basically “make work” schemes. Since all government jobs are “vampiric” the more government jobs the more anemic the economy because the more blood will be sucked out.
In order to create Good Jobs, you must first have a need for something that a private individual will pay for with their own excess capital. Good jobs add “value” to the economy. By adding private good jobs the economy grows. Good jobs get created when companies can produce more from an employees work than that employee consumes. The more efficient the employee the more value gets added to the system and the more economic growth results.
Government Jobs never grow the economy because government jobs never create profit. The problem with the economy today is that there is “too” much government involvement in the economy;
- The FDA is prosecuting Amish farmers for selling “Fresh” milk to willing and informed buyers.
- The EPA has barred U.S. Companies from drilling the Gulf while the Chinese and Cubans go ahead and drill there.
- The EPA is going to put a lizard on the endangered specie list to stop “land” drilling in west Texas.
- The IRS has added agents to enforce a healthcare bill nobody understands and Obama favored companies have been wavered from.
- The DOT is in the process of requiring all commercial vehicles to add “Black Box” devices to track drivers. The DOT is further complicating reporting and record keeping, so even individual truck owning small business people need to consult a “specialist” in order to just be regulatory compliant.
- The “Dodd Frank” finance reform bill has changed all the country’s banking rules except the ones that led to the “Crises” .
Dodd Frank has no changes to Fanny/Freddie or other Government mortgage manipulation. Dodd Frank does make it impossible for US banks to engage in certain banking practices which are highly profitable, which Americans specialize in and had nothing to do with the crash. These former US dominated services are being handed over to foreign banks. Dodd Frank should have been called the Deuche Bank Benefit Bill. The point being if we don’t roll back the power of government to meddle in the economy there will be “NO” actual growth.
Jobs are created only when, someone can provide a good or service which someone else is willing to buy freely.
Herman Cain – Best At Debate
I have long been a fan of Ron Paul, at heart I am a libertarian.
I am baffled by Americans who are not, our founders were libertarians. If I thought Ron Paul could win I wouldn’t be making this post. Having said that, it is so refreshing to have a Non-Politician who is actually qualified for the office. Our country needs a businessman at the helm, that means either Donald Trump or Herman Cain. As for Donald Trump I am suspicious on his conservative bona fides, also as a Christian myself I find it hard to believe that a man in the public as much as Trump is just now revealing his Christianity. It seems to me that if Trump had real “Christian” values it would not come as a surprise announcement, it should have been widely known. Also Trump is a Pro-Business Progressive, which is better than Obama but not better than Herman Cain who I view as a pro business libertarian who is actually qualified for the office.
If Ron Paul gets the nomination I will support him. If Herman Cain gets the nomination I will support him. I was not particularly impressed by the other candidates at the debate. The other leading Candidates in the field are weak GOP progressive sleepers. Mit Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich these guys may be good Americans but they are in fact progressives, I’ve had enough of progressives. As for the others who were at the debate many I have supported in the past but nothing they said tonight did much to make me think “This is Refreshing”.
Herman Cain actually gave me hope, if we support him he’ll kick Obama’s socialist ass!
In closing, I just made a donation to Herman Cain, please support him.
He’s not a politician, he is a successful businessman and a clear leader with real conservative bona fides.
Both Parties are “Socialist”
Since the dawn of socialism in the late 1800′s both the Democrats and Republicans have adopted it.
The Republicans to a lesser degree which is strange when you consider that Theodore Roosevelt was the first “Socialist President”. Having said that the Democratic party has taken the socialist message whole hog. The Republicans have socialist tendencies but aren’t rabid. Prior to the publication of “Das Capital”. The was no socialist tendency at all in the US. The US Government ran less than 5% of GDP except during the civil war where it reached 17%, after the war it dropped back to 5% where it stayed until, he great depression.
After the great depression both parties embraced “Socialism” and the government has steadily consumed more and more of the national wealth. As of today, the Federal Government consumes 30% of GDP, and owes 100% of GDP in debt.
The US Government is in fact insolvent as of right now.
Both Parties are to blame. There have been from time to time in the Republican Party attempts to kill its socialist tendencies, IE Calvin Coolidge, Barry Goldwater and todays TeaParty movement. However the Republican party remains in the hands of “Socialists”. To my knowledge there has never been an attempt to purify the “democratic” party.
The difference between the 2 parties today is the Democrats are Socialist in the Hitler tradition believing that the individual belongs to the State, While the Republicans are more English in their “socialism”, which means you are free but your money belongs to the state.
Both parties have betrayed the Constitution
In the United States, the people own the Government not the other way around. In the United States, its the “Individual” that matters most. You should be free to live your life as you see fit, with out so much as a by or leave. The American Dream, is to live free from government coercion, free to fail or to succeed, free to prosper or to squander. That is close to being lost. It is being replaced by the “New American Dream” which is to be free to be mediocre, free to do exactly as the Government tells you.
Posted in Tea Party | Tags: Barry Goldwater, Calvin Coolidge, Das Capital, Democratic Party, Democratic socialism, Economic ideologies, Federal Government, International Democrat Union, Political ideologies, Politics, Republican Party, Social Issues, Socialism, Socialist President, TeaParty, The American Dream, Theodore Roosevelt, United States, US Government | No Comments »
White House Insider: Obama Hesitated – Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden | Socyberty
White House Insider: Obama Hesitated – Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden | Socyberty.
This guy is even worse than I thought. If half of this article is true we are lucky to have some people with balls around the President to force him to act.
The real entertaining thing here is how Obama went on TV gloating about how “HE” made the decision. When the reality is he was forced to by Hillary Clinton, and Leon Panetta.
Posted in General Idiocy | Tags: Barack Obama, Government, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Leon Panetta, Panetta, Politics, President, United States | No Comments »
Osama Bin Laden dead: Obama took 16 hours to make up his mind | Mail Online
Osama Bin Laden dead: Obama took 16 hours to make up his mind | Mail Online.
Imagine you’re the President,
for 15 years your country has been on the trail of a known mass murderer. A person who has been at the top of the FBIs most wanted list for a decade, a person who admitted on video tape about planning the deaths of 3000 innocent people, just for the shock value, and then carried out the plan. Part of your campaign to get elected was to “Go out and get the guy”. . . You promised to refocus efforts to punish the mass murderer. Then one afternoon you are told “We have him. . . We can get him, do you want precision bombs or a seal team infiltration”?
What is your response; Tell me more, maybe, what do you guys recommend? Bear in mind the US has a long history of dealing with guys like this, there is plenty of precedent, Che Guevara, Bonny and Clyde even John Dillinger, so there is no question it is legal to kill the guy. Also the man publicly declared war on the US in 1996 and had been actively wagging that war.
What would you say?
Bill Clinton said let him go I’m not interested in him, allowing the 9/11 attack. George Bush and Don Rumsfeld both said “Damn it . . . go kill the guy what are you calling me for”? However, he escaped because the CIA didn’t act, I don’t have proof but I suspect this is the real reason the CIA chief was later dumped.
So now we come to you, what do you do?
I know what I would do, ” Go kill him! Do it however you think most effective but do something now. . . we don’t want him to slip away again!” isn’t that reasonable?
What did B. Obama do “Gee guys 15 years on the most wanted list isn’t enough time to decide. . . Give me another 16 hours” he said and then he went to bed, “To sleep on it.”
All I can say is WOW.
Why do we not hear about this in the US press, he is our Un-Decider in Chief. This should be the focus of the story not what a hero B. Obama is for deciding to kill Osama Bin Ladin, but what a weak waffler he is for needing an additional 16 hours. At least Bill Clinton made a decision quickly turned out to be wrong but you can’t fault him for indecision, in Clinton’s defense he didn’t campaign on killing Bin Ladin. B. Obama made getting Bin Ladin his primary attack on the Bush administration, he said repeatedly the focus should be in Afghanistan and on getting Osama Bin Ladin. When he finally gets a chance to be Presidential he has to “Sleep on it”.
Like I said Un-Decider in Chief.
Posted in General Idiocy | Tags: Afghan Civil War, Afghanistan, Bill Clinton, Bush administration, Central Intelligence Agency, Che Guevara, Don Rumsfeld, Islam, Islamic terrorism, Larry C. Johnson, Osama bin Laden, Osama Bin Ladin, Politics, Politics of the United States, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations timeline, Salafis, September 11 attacks, Sunni Islam, Terrorism, United States | No Comments »