Yesterday the Log Cabin Republicans issues a formal press release statement urging President Obama to sign the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010.

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI) President, Ambassador Mark D. Wallace joined with Log Cabin to urge the signing of the sanctions. The sanctions include key provisions that prevent companies that do business in Iran from contracting with the U.S. Government.  Now, companies covered by this legislation will have to choose between doing business with Iran and doing business with the U.S.

Read the entire press release at http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/reading-room-back-up/log-cabin-republicans-call-3.html

Posted: June 30th, 2010 under Action Alert, In Congress, In the News, In the World, Log Cabin In Focus.
Comments: none

During its busiest time before a three month recess the Supreme Court ruled on several major cases. Two of these cases were specifically ruled in favor of equality for gays and lesbians.

 The first case was Doe V. Reed where the Justices voted 8-1 with Justice Thomas dissenting. The case dealt with the names of people who signed a petition in Washington to overturn a new gay rights law that allows “all but marriage” domestic partnerships to be recognized in the state. The arguments were to keep the names secret or allow the public to know the names of the people who signed a petition to overturn the law. Protect Marriage Washington brought the case to The Court and asked the Justices to shield the names of the 138,000 people who signed the R-71 petitions with arguments that making the names public violated First Amendment rights. The bi-partisan ruling saw the issue as public information.

 Justice Scalia explained this principle in his opinion: “For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.”

 The other case the Court ruled on dealt with anti-gay college groups. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a school can legally deny funding to any group that discriminates against people gaining membership based on sexual orientation. The Christian Legal Society at The University of California’s Hastings College of the Law refused membership to gays and lesbians based on their organization’s rules.

 The group’s Statement of Faith that members must follow includes “the belief that Christians should not engage in sexual conduct outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.’’ The group also states that “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle’’ is not allowed for members in the group. The Court ruled that no First Amendment rights were violated and that the Christian Legal Society was violating the state school’s nondiscrimination policy. The Courts decision will be felt at numerous college campuses because Christian Legal Society and other groups like it have chapters at universities nationwide.

 These two landmark case decisions by the Court came at a much needed time for equality in America. Let’s hope our other two branches of government take similar moves toward freedom and equality that “resemble the Home of the Brave.”

Posted: June 30th, 2010 under Action Alert, In Focus, In the News, In the States.
Comments: none

 Dems Ready To Break Obama’s Middle Class Tax Pledge, And They’re Starting By Not Extending Bush Tax Cuts   

View This Research Briefing At GOP.com

Follow RNC Research on Twitter

Learn More in our “Stomping Grounds” Blog  

 BUSH TAX CUTS PASSED WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN 2001, 2003   In 2001, 28 House Democrats Joined House Republicans In Lowering Tax Rates On Income, Dividends, Capital Gains.(H.R. 1836, Economic Growth And Tax Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2001, Roll Call Vote #149, Approved 240-154, R: 211-0, D: 28-153, I: 1-1, 5/26/01)  

•  And 12 Senate Democrats Joined 46 Senate Republicans In Supporting The Legislation.(H.R. 1836, Economic Growth And Tax Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2001, Roll Call Vote #170, Approved 58-33, R: 46-2, D: 12-33, 5/26/01)

  In 2003, 7 House Democrats Joined House Republicans To Further Reduce Taxes On Income, Dividends, Capital Gains.(H.R. 2, Jobs And Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2003, Roll Call Vote #225, Approved 231-200, R: 224-1, D: 7-198, I: 0-1, 5/23/03)  

•  And 2 Senate Democrats Joined 48 Senate Republicans In Supporting The Legislation. (H.R. 2, Jobs And Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2003, Roll Call Vote #196, Approved 50-50, Vice President Voted Yea, R: 48-2, D: 2-47, I: 0-1, 5/23/03)

  BUT NOW HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER HOYER IS AGAINST MAKING THEM PERMANENT, BREAKING OBAMA’S PLEDGE NOT TO RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS   Candidate Obama: “I can make a firm pledge.  Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.  Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks In Dover, NH, 8/12/08)  

• President Obama: “If Your Family Earns Less Than $250,000 A Year, A Quarter Million Dollars A Year, You Will Not See Your Taxes Increased A Single Dime. I Repeat: Not One Single Dime.” (President Barack Obama, Address Before A Joint Session Of Congress, Washington, DC, 2/24/09)

  Hoyer Says The Bush Tax Cuts For The Middle Class Should Not Be Permanent. “Hoyer, the second-ranking House Democrat, said in an interview that he expects Congress to extend middle-class tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration that are set to expire at the end of this year. But he said the extension should not be permanent.” (Lori Montgomery, “Rep. Steny Hoyer Says Middle-Class Tax Breaks May Not Be Affordable Long-Term,” The Washington Post, 6/22/10)   Hoyer Is Laying The Groundwork To Break Obama’s Pledge Not To Increase Taxes On The Middle Class. “Tax cuts that benefit the middle class should not be ‘totally sacrosanct’ as policymakers try to plug the nation’s yawning budget gap, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Monday, acknowledging that it would be difficult to reduce long-term deficits without breaking President Obama’s pledge to protect families earning less than $250,000 a year.” (Lori Montgomery, “Rep. Steny Hoyer Says Middle-Class Tax Breaks May Not Be Affordable Long-Term,” The Washington Post, 6/22/10)   And Other Democrats On Capitol Hill Do Not Feel Bound By President Obama’s Pledge Not To Raise Taxes On Those Making Less Than $250,000 A Year. “Democrats are looking at the possibility of raising taxes on families below the $250,000-a-year threshold promised by President Barack Obama during the election. The majority party on Capitol Hill does not feel bound by that pledge, saying the threshold for tax hikes will depend on several factors, such as the revenue differences between setting the threshold at $200,000 and setting it at $250,000.” (Alex Bolton, “Dems: We’re Not Bou nd By President’s Tax Vow,” The Hill, 6/22/10)  

•  Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) Says That “You Can’t Make Promises To People.” “‘You could go lower, too — why not $200,000?’ said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). ‘With the debt and deficit we have, you can’t make promises to people. This is a very serious situation.’” (Alex Bolton, “Dems: We’re Not Bound By President’s Tax Vow,” The Hill, 6/22/10)
• Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I’m Not Hard And Fast On $250,000. . . Quite Frankly, It Could Be Somewhat Lower Than That.”(Alex Bolton, “Dems: We’re Not Bound By President’s Tax Vow,” The Hill, 6/22/10)
•  Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “I Don’t Think There’s Any Magic In The Number, Whether It’s $250,000, $200,000 Or $225,000.”(Alex Bolton, “Dems: We’re Not Bound By President’s Tax Vow,” The Hill, 6/22/10)

  NOT EXTENDING BUSH TAX CUTS HITS MIDDLE CLASS INDIVIDUALS WITH HIGHER TAXESAND HAMPERS SMALL BUSINESS JOB GROWTH   If The Bush Tax Cuts Are Allowed To Expire The Average Tax Filer Will See Their Taxes Rise $1,368. (Tax Policy Center, “Make Individual Income Tax Cuts In EGTRRA (2001) And JGTRRA (2003) Permanent,” Table T10-0070, 2/3/10)   If The Bush Tax Cuts Are Allowed To Expire, A Family Of Four With Two Children And One Breadwinner And $50,000 In Yearly Income Would See Their Federal Taxes Increase $2,137 From $688 To $2,825. (Mark Robyn, “Taxpayers Face Uncertainty In 2011 As Bush And Obama Tax Cuts Expire,” The Tax Foundation, 5/26/10)  

• A Family Of Five, With Two Working Parents And Three Children With A Yearly Income Of $45,000 Would See Their Effective Tax Rate Increase From -3.5% to 2.3%. They Would Go From Receiving A Credit Of $1,510 To Owing $1,020. (Mark Robyn, “Taxpayers Face Uncertainty In 2011 As Bush And Obama Tax Cuts Expire,” The Tax Foundation, 5/26/10)
•  A Single Parent With A Yearly Income Of $25,000 Currently Has No Income Tax Liability And An Effective Tax Rate Of -7.5%. If The Bush Tax Cuts Expire Their Rate Would Increase To -3.5%, Reducing Assistance From $1,881 To $928. (Mark Robyn, “Taxpayers Face Uncertainty In 2011 As Bush And Obama Tax Cuts Expire,” The Tax Foundation, 5/26/10)

  Obama’s Income Tax Rate Increase Will Hit Small Businesses That Create 60 To 80 Percent Of New Jobs, “Discouraging” Their “Growth Or Expansion.” “They want to restore the higher, Clinton-era tax rates on the top two individual income brackets, increasing the 33 and 35 percent rates to 36 and 39.6 percent. But these higher rates won’t just hit high wages; they’ll hit business income … Depending on how we define ’small business,’ these higher tax rates would raise taxes on 45 to 55 percent of small business income … So why should we pay attention to the way our tax code treats small businesses? They are an important source of innovation and risk-taking, creating betwee n 60 and 80 percent of net new jobs, employing over half the labor force … Higher income tax rates reduce the investment spending of entrepreneurs and the likelihood that they invest at all, discouraging the growth or expansion of small businesses.” (Robert Carroll, “Small Business And The Personal Income Tax Rates,” Tax Foundation, 10/28/08)   Obama’s Higher Income Tax Rates Will Stifle Entrepreneurship And Hurt “An Important Source Of innovation.” “The impact of the higher tax rates on the entrepreneurial sector is also particularly troubling. An often underappreciated feature of our tax system is that roughly one-third of all business taxes are paid by owners of flow-through businesses … when they file their individual tax returns. These businesses are an important source of innovation and risk taking.” (Robert Carroll, “The Economic Cost Of High Tax Rates,” Tax Foundation, 7/29/09)   NEXT UP: THE DEATH TAX REAPPEARS, HITTING FAMILY OWNED BUSINESSES   Senator Sanders Pushing Excessive New Death Tax. “Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and three Senate Democrats Thursday proposed an estate-tax plan that would hit wealthier taxpayers harder than another proposal on the table. … Under the proposal, as in 2009, the exemption would be $3.5 million for an individual, or as much as $7 million for a couple, with a tax rate of 45%. But estates with taxable assets between $10 million and $50 million would pay a 50% rate, and estates valued above $50 million would pay 55%. A further 10 % surtax would apply to assets above $500 million.” (Laura Saunders, “Sanders Estate-Tax Proposal Would Hit Wealthy Harder,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/25/10)  

•  “‘The Sanders Proposal Is One Extreme In The Current Debate,’ Said Clint Stretch, An Analyst At Deloitte Tax. ‘The Challenge For The Senate Is Whether The Members Can Agree To Anything At All.’” (Laura Saunders, “Sanders Estate-Tax Proposal Would Hit Wealthy Harder,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/25/10)

Even If Sanders Proposal Is Not Adopted, Death Tax Will Come Back With A Vengeance Next Year. “The estate tax lapsed temporarily on Jan. 1 after the Senate failed to extend it last year. If lawmakers do nothing, the tax will resume in 2011 with a 55% rate on estates above about $1.2 million. Last year, estates of more than $3.5 million for an individual were subject to a 45% tax.” (Laura Saunders, “Sanders Estate-Tax Proposal Would Hit Wealthy Harder,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/25/10)   And Death Tax Goes After Family-Owned Businesses And Workers “Particularly Hard.” “Despite the common misconception that the death tax impacts only wealthy estates, economists now generally agree that it is actually a tax on capital because of its impact on businesses and workers. Capital–whether it is cash, equipment, or other types of property–is necessary for businesses to create new jobs and pay higher wages. There is a general consensus among economists that taxing capital is harmful to the economy. Yet because it is a tax on capital, the estate tax hits America’s family-owned businesses and their workers particularly hard.” (Curtis Dubay, “Estate Tax A Killer For Family-Owned Businesses And Their Workers,” The Heritage Foundation, 11/19/09)  

Republican National Committee | 310 First Street, SE | Washington, D.C. 20003
p: 202.863.8500 | f: 202.863.8820 | e: info@gop.com

Posted: June 29th, 2010 under Action Alert, Democrats, From the Right, In Focus, In the States.
Comments: none

Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled in the favor of gun owning Americans. The decision was 5-4 to protect the rights for Americans to own guns. The case overturns a law made in Chicago. The NRA released the following statement about the ruling of the Court.

National Rifle Association responds to Supreme Court ruling

By NRA | Published: Monday, June 28th, 2010 | Updated: Monday, June 28th, 2010

“Today marks a great moment in American history. This is a landmark decision. It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending.

Posted: June 29th, 2010 under Action Alert, In the States.
Comments: none

NOTE: Guest blogger Matt Salmon is chairman of the Arizona Log Cabin Republicans  

In newspapers and blogs, on television and the Internet we are constantly bombarded by the idea  that being gay automatically means we must choose the Democratic Party and all Republicans are basically anti-gay. I understand that Republicans do not have the greatest track record on gay issues, but times are changing. The basic tenants of the Republican Party support gays and all of their rights and change is inevitable, but will take some hard work.

Several years ago I was a young, scared boy and I knew that I was gay, but growing up in a staunch Republican family was one more strong reason I could not be. At least, that is what I was taught by family, friends and the media. Somehow though, I do not think life was ever meant to be guided by the instructions found in a “Build Your Own Adventure” book. Where in life does it say at the bottom of the page:

“If you decide to be gay, you are democrat – turn to page 37.”
“If you decide to be straight, you can be anything – turn to page 12 for independent, 25 for republican, 37 for democrat…”?

I have often heard people say, “I just don’t get the idea of gay Republicans.” Personally, as one who has grown up as a gay man in a Republican family, I don’t understand why more of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community are not Republican.

I was recently reviewing the core ideals of the Republican Party: limited government, individual freedom, personal responsibility, strong national defense and free market economy and all of those basics support equality for GLBT individuals. Here’s why:

A limited government would keep the government out of restricting the right to marry from one person to another. Many individuals within the party have lost sight of what a limited government truly means, it is time to bring it back.

Individual freedom promotes the ideas of “life (to live it as we choose), liberty (so our choices are not limited), and the pursuit of happiness (to live it with whom we choose)” promised all Americans in the Declaration of Independence. All people should be allowed the privilege of making their own decisions where they do not infringe upon the same privilege of another.

Personal responsibility allows every person the ability to support themselves and the ones they love, i.e. adoption, hospital rights, legal rights.

A strong national defense would only be stronger from those GLBT men and women with integrity openly serving and honoring their loved ones and country.

A free market economy protects all business owners from government intervention.

To date, the Republican Party, as a whole, has not done much for equality, but what more have the Democratic congress and executive branch done? It seems they continuously make empty promises, which hurt those they promise to protect.

To be Republican is not to be anti-gay, nor is it necessarily socially conservative, and it is time for the community to open its mind and begin to allow people to be individuals. There are an increasing number of prominent members of the Republican Party coming out as supporters of equal rights for all, such as Laura Bush and Cindy McCain. Yet, it is no wonder that many people feel that they cannot be both, and that those who are both are anomalies, when they are constantly told that Democrats are pro-gay and Republicans are anti-gay. I have grown tired of it.

 Gays who are former Republicans often ask me how I can be a Republican as a gay man, to which I reply, “We are different. You see something you do not like and so you change your party. I see something I do not like and I work to bring about change from within.”

I am proudly gay and proudly Republican. After all, an elephant just doesn’t fit in a closet.

Posted: June 24th, 2010 under GOP Heroes, Log Cabin In Focus, On the Lighter Side.
Comments: none

It is not the rich or the poor that are paying a large quantity of America’s annual federal taxes, reported a study from the Congressional Budget Office. CNSNews reported that “middle-class households that earned between $34,300 and $141,900 paid 50.5 percent of all federal tax revenues in 2007 (the most recent year analyzed), according to the CBO study released Thursday, and households that earned between $34,300 and $352,900 paid 66.7 percent of all federal taxes.”

 Those households that make over $352,900 pay only around 28 percent on federal taxes, but those households in the lower income brackets pay significantly less than the middle class and upper class. The households that make less than $34,300 paid only 5.2 percent, and those earning less than $20,500 had close to no federal tax burden.

 With such programs as Earned Tax Credit that pay credit to households making less than $34,300 are actually paying a negative amount of federal taxes! They receive a credit back on income taxes that was never actually paid.  According to the CBO data, taxation has been getting more substantial, but the taxation has lightened on lower income households while increasing on higher income households.

 The middle class is carrying the burden of America. Rising federal taxes are punishing the middle-range hard working Americans. The burden of the middle class is continually growing while lower income households taxes are growing lighter.

Posted: June 22nd, 2010 under Action Alert, Democrats, In Congress.
Comments: none

The upcoming November election will make history for the GLBT community. For the first time ever a gay male Republican will face off against a lesbian Democrat for the State Assembly of California, District 74.

 Ralph Denney (R) a longtime member of Log Cabin Republicans will go head-to-head with Toni Akins (D). Each candidate won their primaries and is now revving up for November. Denney is a strong leader that describes himself as a family man and morale Christian. Education has emerged as Denney’s strongest passion in this race, campaigning for the public schools, reported the Gay and Lesbian Times. Denney’s opponent, Toni Adkins fights for affordable housing, crime reduction, and senior services and is a past Councilmember.

 For once, voters can make their decision on Republican or Democrat and focus on the actual issues and not whether a candidate is gay or straight. It won’t be about who you are sleeping with but what you actually stand for. Whomever the winner, he/she will be representing a GLBT majority community of San Diego. That’s progress, representatives that actually represent their community.

 There are currently four openly gay men serving in the Assembly, and hopefully it will soon be five with the addition of Log Cabin Republican Ralph Denney.

Posted: June 21st, 2010 under Elections, In the States, Log Cabin In Focus.
Comments: 1

CNSNews reported today that “the Bush administration was twice able to pull off what the current administration has not” after three countries refused to back sanctions to Iran. Turkey, Brazil, and Lebanon voted against the resolution. (Read the entire story below)

 “The Obama administration is playing down the absence of U.N. Security Council unanimity in adopting new sanctions against Iran on Wednesday, attributing three members’ refusal to back the resolution to differences over “timing and tactics.”
 
Turkey and Brazil voted against resolution 1929, while Lebanon abstained.
 
For all its supposed unilateralism and unpopularity at the U.N., the Bush administration was twice able to pull off what the current administration has not – a 15 out of 15 vote in the council for sanctions against Tehran. On a third occasion, the Bush administration achieved a 14-0 vote, with one abstention.
 
Resolutions 1737 (in 2006), 1747 (2007) and 1803 (2008) were, at China and Russia’s insistence, less robust than the U.S. would have wished. But at least the unanimous vote result in the first two cases demonstrated a unified position on Iran’s nuclear activities by the world body’s most powerful organ.
 
The Bush administration was widely accused of substandard diplomacy, not least by its domestic critics. U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said last September the new administration had “dramatically changed the tone, the substance, and the practice of our diplomacy at the United Nations” and accused the previous one of “stiff-arming the U.N. and spurning our international partners.”
 
Yet under some of her predecessors – John Bolton in the months leading up to the 2006 resolution, Alejandro Wolff in 2007, and Zalmay Khalilzad in 2008 – the U.S. managed to win over several non-permanent Council members either sympathetic to Iran, or at least not pro-Western in outlook.
 
They included Qatar (2006 and 2007), Indonesia (2007), South Africa (2007 and 2008), Vietnam (2008) – and even Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya (2008).

In voting no on Wednesday, Brazil and Turkey argued the sanctions would endanger a diplomatic solution to the standoff, which has dragged on since 2002. (According to Beirut’s Daily Star, Lebanon abstained after its cabinet could not reach agreement on the matter. Western-leaning ministers wanted an abstention; Hezbollah and its allies wanted Lebanon to vote against the resolution.)
 
Brazil and Turkey last month negotiated an agreement for Iran to send some of its low-enriched uranium abroad for processing, and said afterwards that there was no longer any need for additional U.N. sanctions.
 
But the U.S. and others pressed ahead with negotiations on a draft resolution, saying the Turkey-Brazil-Iran deal did not resolve the core questions driving suspicion that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability under the cover of a civilian program.
 
When the Security Council a year ago unanimously approved a resolution tightening sanctions against North Korea, U.S. diplomats stressed the importance of the fact the council was “speaking with one voice.”
 
Testifying before Congress in February, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers that it was important that “we speak with one voice, one voice within our government and one voice internationally, against Iran’s failure to live up to its responsibilities.”
 
Administration officials on Wednesday minimized the significance of the 12-2 vote.
 
“The passage today of resolution 1929 occurred with a very strong majority of the Security Council,” U.S. ambassador Rice said after the session. “We are very pleased by the outcome and pleased by the strong support that was demonstrated by Council members.”
 
“The fact that Turkey and Brazil chose to vote no, I think as you heard in their statements, was a reflection largely of a difference of timing and tactics,” she said.
“Both countries affirmed their view that Iran should not have a nuclear weapons capability, we share that goal. They differed with the other members of the Security Council about the timing and appropriateness of sanctions at this stage.”
 
“We would have welcomed a unanimous vote,” State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told a briefing. “We didn’t get the unanimous vote, but we got a very, very strong, compelling statement from the international community.”
 
Asked whether the absence of unanimity weakened the signal of collective will, Crowley alluded to the difficulties faced by diplomats.
 
“I would say that given the amount of effort and length of effort by Iran to try to do everything in its power to avoid this moment, I think we are satisfied that this sends a very strong message,” he said.
 
“We have a difference of view over perhaps tactics and timing. We respect that. But I think we are very satisfied that this resolution will raise the cost of Iran’s noncompliance,” Crowley said.
 
“We are going to, now working with international partners, move ahead with aggressively enforcing this resolution. And we expect that it will have impact in Iran.” ”

Posted: June 18th, 2010 under Democrats, GOP Heroes, In the World.
Comments: none

“Since The Obama Stimulus was passed 2,253,000 Workers Have LOST Their Jobs. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, “The Employment Situation – May 2010,” BLS.gov, 6/4/10)  What next from Obama-rama?  Five year plans?  Those did not do too well for the U.S.S.R.”

Posted: June 18th, 2010 under Action Alert, Democrats, In the States, Issues in Focus.
Comments: none

Tomorrow, closing arguments are being heard on the challenge of Proposition 8 by a California federal judge. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker has asked lawyers arguing the case to address several questions about the meaning of “choice” in sexual orientation.  Specifically, 39 questions that evolve around whether being gay and lesbian is a choice. Lawyers will state their cases to Walker’s questions during several hours of closing arguments.

 “Walker’s questions reveal some of the issues still troubling him and suggest that his decision will rely heavily on evidence about the nature of sexual orientation, the effect of Proposition 8, and the similarities and differences between heterosexual and same-sex couples. He asked each side 12 questions and posed an additional 15 to both,” reported the Las Angeles Times

 Testimony began in January with conservative former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson and noted liberal litigator David Boies — the duo who squared off in Bush vs. Gore — to represent the challengers. The lawsuit was brought by two same-sex couples who want to marry.  A ruling is expected to be heard this summer. The decision will most likely be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Posted: June 15th, 2010 under In Focus, In the News, In the States, Issues in Focus.
Comments: none