Yes, you read that right. In a ballot question this past election day, Westtown residents voted 3,459 to 1,745 (67 percent) to approve a tax increase for the preservation of Crebilly Farms as one of Chesco’s major open spaces.
The earned income tax rate goes from 1 percent to 1.08 percent and the real estate tax rate increases from 3.5 mills to 3.92 mills.
Crebilly farms is the site of the Battle of Brandywine on Sept. 11, 1777, then the largest single-day battle of the American Revolution, which was won by the British/Hessian forces. This victory led to the British occupation of Philadelphia.
The estimated cost of the tax increase for a household earning $100,000 would be an additional $80 in local earned income tax. A household with an assessed house value of $250,000 would pay an additional $105 per year.
The Natural Lands Trust hopes to land about $2.5 million in grants, and says they are well on their way to doing that.
The Daily Local News of Chester County has been ovewhelmed with letters.
Record Immigration-Driven Population Surge In Canada
By Joe Guzzardi
Canada’s Immigration Minister Sean Fraser recently announced a bold immigration plan that has serious long-term deleterious consequences for the nation’s population growth and environmental degradation.
Fraser’s goal is, by 2025, to add 1.45 million permanent resident immigrants to address what he and other government officials claim is a critical labor shortage; allegedly 1 million Canadian jobs are unfilled. Fraser said: “Make no mistake. This is a massive increase in economic migration to Canada.” The Minister’s new plan projects a flood of new arrivals that will see 465,000 foreign nationals in 2023, rising to 500,000 in 2025. By comparison, 405,000 permanent residents were admitted last year.
Fraser’s immigration vision to admit a record-breaking number of immigrants is inspired by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s sentiments. Following his 2019 election wherein he campaigned on more immigration, he followed up with welcoming messages to refugees. Defending his massive immigration increase, Fraser repeated familiar refrains about an aging Canadian population and a low birth rate. Without immigration, Fraser foresees a Canada that won’t have the financial resources to fund schools, hospitals and other services. In short, Fraser used scare tactics to deceive Canada’s citizens.
Canada’s long-standing commitment to higher immigration levels has created an unprecedented population surge. In 2021, Canada’s population rose to 37 million people, up 5.2 percent from 2016, driven mostly by immigration, according to official government data. Downtowns and distant suburbs of large cities have experienced the largest growth rates.
Canada added 1.8 million people between 2016 and 2021, with nearly 80 percent of those new residents arriving from across the globe. Research from Statistics Canada (StatsCan) published in its Census 2021 release gives Canada the dubious distinction of being the fastest growing G7 country. Almost 90 percent of new immigrants settled in urban centers, Statscan said, edging up the proportion of Canadians living in large urban centers to 73.7 percent from 73.2 percent five years ago. During the five-year time period studied, Toronto’s population increased 16.1 percent, Montreal, 24.2 percent, and Vancouver, 7.4 percent. The report concluded that Canada continues to urbanize as large city centers benefit most from new arrivals to the country. But not all Canadians would use “benefit” as a descriptor for rapid, uncontrolled population growth.
Fraser’s plan is so ill-conceived that even the most basic and fundamental need of arriving immigrants – affordable housing – will be an insurmountable challenge. Canada is undergoing a severe housing crisis that has driven home prices out of the range for many buyers. Simply put, more people mean that more homes and more roads that lead to them must be built. And new home development creates urban sprawl.
Mike Moffatt, executive director of the Smart Prosperity Institute, outlined the crisis that exploding population has wrought for environmentalists. “What [land] isn’t being used for housing is either being used for nature, like the Greenbelt, or for farmlands, – and we’re already losing 175 acres a day in Ontario of farmland to development.”
Ontario environmentalists like Moffatt are fighting to save its glorious Greenbelt from ever-greater development and sprawl. Today, plans to run a highway through a portion of the belt are advancing.
Like most environmentalists in Ontario, Moffatt fears that at any time the government could decide to develop “little pieces” of the Greenbelt. Sooner or later, Moffatt fears, those little pieces could add up to great big chunks.
To be crystal-clear, the new immigrant total will far exceed 1.45 million. New immigrants will grow their existing families and petition certain family members. Princeton University scholars estimated, conservatively, that each migrant petitions three relatives living abroad. Within a generation, the 1.45 million new Canadians could swell to more than 3 million.
Trudeau and Fraser have concocted an immigration plan that will devastate Canada. Immigration isn’t a one-off. Arriving immigrants need nurturing, a compassionate exercise that often comes at the expense, at least partially, of the native-born population. The Canadian government and the corporate elite are all-in on more immigrants. But, if the population at large knew that the arriving 1.45 million immigrants would more than double during many of their lifetimes and degrade Canada’s natural beauty, it would be staunchly opposed.
Joe Guzzardi is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist who writes about immigration and related social issues. Joe joined Progressives for Immigration Reform in 2018 as an analyst after a ten-year career directing media relations for Californians for Population Stabilization, where he also was a Senior Writing Fellow. A native Californian, Joe now lives in Pennsylvania. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.
Record Immigration-Driven Population Surge In Canada
Veteran And Hero Cecil Travis Of The Washington Senators
By Joe Guzzardi
Baseball history is rich with inspiring stories about Hall of Fame players who served with distinction during World War II, then returned to the diamond, and picked up their stellar careers exactly where they left off. In 1942, Marine Corp Captain Ted Williams hit .356; came back in 1946 to hit .342, the first of his 13 consecutive .313 or better seasons. Williams’ 1946 accomplishments earned him the American League MVP award, and, in 1949, he won his second MVP. New York Yankees’ shortstop Phil Rizzuto, after two productive years, joined the Navy, and served in the Pacific Theater from 1943 to 1946. Once reunited with the Yankees, Rizzuto excelled, won the 1950 MVP title, and played on five All-Star teams.
But for another shortstop, his World War II experiences brought an end to what certainly would have been a Hall of Fame career. The Washington Senators’ Cecil Travis broke into baseball with a bang. In May 1931, after hitting .356 for the Double-A Chattanooga Lookouts, the Washington Senators called Travis up. Travis got five consecutive hits in his first-ever game, quickly establishing himself as one of the American League’s most stellar players.
Playing shortstop and third base, Travis, age 18, compiled a .322 batting average in 1940, and his 1941 season, his ninth, was his best. Playing in all 152 games for the Senators, Travis batted .359, second only to Ted Williams’ incredible .406. Travis led the league with 218 hits and finished second with 19 triples. He also had a career-high 101 RBIs. Unfortunately, Travis, who hit .300 or better in eight of his first nine seasons, played for the perennial-losing Senators, a team that got little media attention. Otherwise, fans nationwide would have hailed Travis as a superstar.
A month after Pearl Harbor, the Army inducted Travis and sent him to Georgia’s Camp Wheeler. By 1944, Travis joined the 76th Infantry Division’s Special Forces and was shipped to Europe for active duty. The 76th entered the European Theater in December. That winter, during the Battle of the Bulge’s final days and in pursuit of Hitler’s retreating German soldiers, Americans suffered through bitter cold. Travis developed frostbite on two of his toes and spent time recovering in a French hospital.
After the 76th was deactivated in June 1945, Travis returned home, and by September, manager Ossie Bluege inserted his name into the Senators’ starting lineup. But Travis never returned to his pre-war excellence, and his potential Hall of Fame career came to a screeching halt. Travis wasn’t the same player who had compiled a .327 career batting average before the war. That September, he hit .241, and .252 in 1946, his last season as a full-time player.
On August 15, 1947 at Griffith Stadium, the Senators celebrated “Cecil Travis Night.” At the ceremony, which former Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower attended, Travis was showered with gifts, including a fancy DeSoto automobile and a 1,500-pound Hereford bull. Travis officially retired after the 1947 season – he hit .216 as a part-time player – and then until 1956, he scouted for the Senators.
Travis, like most World War II veterans, refused to blame his military service for derailing his baseball career. Instead, Travis simply said that his four years away from the game were “too long.” He said, “We had a job to do, an obligation, and we did it. I was hardly the only one.” Bob Feller and Williams lobbied unsuccessfully for Travis’ Hall of Fame induction, and pointed out that Travis’ .314 career average ranked him favorably with other Hall of Fame shortstops. But as Travis philosophically said: “I was a good player, but I wasn’t a great one.”
At age 93, on his farm in his native Georgia, Travis, the player that umpires once named their favorite – that Feller considered one of the toughest batters he faced and that Williams labeled as an efficient pure hitter – died from heart failure.
Joe Guzzardi is a Society for American Research and Internet Baseball Writers Association member. Contact him at guzzjoe@yahoo.com.
Veteran And Hero Cecil Travis Of The Washington Senators
York and Lancaster counties are named for the warring sides in the English War of the Roses, even adopting their symbols with York having the white rose and Lancaster the red and naming sporting rivalries for it.
The incumbent in the 93rd is the Republican Mike Jones, with Chris Rodkey being the Democrat in the race.
“The most important person in my life is my grandmother, Margaret Cousler. She was elected in the 1960’s as the tax collector for Springgettsbury Township, where she served her community for over 45 years,”Ms. Cousler-Womack says on her Ballotpedia page, and that she wants to follow her “in being a voice for those who do not have one.”
“All of us, listening to each other and each playing our role, will be critical in our efforts to raise up our communities, from Dallastown to Shrewsbury and everything in between,”she says on her campaign website.
She has been a teacher’s assistant in the Dallastown area and a volunteer in various areas. She is also involved with Job’s Daughters International.
The organization was founded in 1920 as a companion group to the Masons and is a leadership organization for girls between the ages of 10 and 20.
The name comes from Job 42:15 “And in all the land were no women found so fair as the Daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren”, which was rare in those times.
David Kocur is the only other non-statewide candidate from the Keystone Party.
Green Party Faces Deceased Incumbent In 32 District House Race
By Bob Small
Green Party candidate Quenoia “Zarah” Livingston, a healthcare worker and community organizer, is running against a dead man in Pennsylvania’s 32 District State House race, which is in Allegheny County.
The 85-year-old incumbent Democrat Tony Deluca died Oct. 9 of lymphoma and the GOP didn’t field a candidate.
She says she would “ban fracking and retrain industry workers for equivalent green trades union jobs and protect our rights to alternative fuel sources, including solar”
Quenoia “Zarah” Livingston
She says she would guarantee housing.
She would seek to end a US-Israel law enforcement exchanges which she calls “deadly exchange.”
She wants to raise the minimum wage to $20.
She would earmark funds for fire and emergency services in rural areas.
She would legalize marijuana and magic mushrooms and back safe injection sites and needle exchanges.
If the late Mr. Deluca gets the most votes the seat will remain unfilled until a special election could be called.
Lastly, the only other non statewide candidate for the Pennsylvania Greens is Jay Ting Walker in the 23rd Legislative District. See his website for information.
Green Party Faces Deceased Incumbent In 32 District House Race
The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania has 14 candidates running for State House seats. State House Candidates including Edward Clifford III in Delaware County.
Clifford is facing incumbent Democrat Greg Vitali and Republican Kimberly Razzano in the 166th District which is Haverford Township along with the along with the 1st, 2nd and 3rd wards in Marple, and the 1st and 3rd divisions of its 4th Ward. Vitali has held the seat since 1993.
Clifford is against Pennsylvania joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative as it will “reward wealthy polluters.”
He advocates replacing taxes with GoFundMe.
“Taxpayers should not fund anything,” he says.
He says adults should be allowed to consume any drug they want.
“The racist war on drugs is a complete failure and disaster for us,” he says.
Clifford has a BA in business and finance from St. Joe’s University.
He has worked as a consultant and in related positions for seven different companies, most recently ION Trading. He is very involved with the Boy Scouts of America.
Everything Isn’t Enough For Immigration Expansionists
By Joe Guzzardi
Imagine if White House officials, the Chamber of Commerce, the establishment media, corporate America and ethnic identity advocacy groups agreed to an immigration roundtable. Then, further imagine that the moderator asked three questions.
The first question: “Given that fiscal year 2022 ended with a record 2.4 million migrant encounters exclusive of 599,000 known ‘gotaways,’ but including 238,000 in September alone, how many more migrants should be admitted before enforcement begins?”
Second: “Assuming Congress passes amnesty for every unlawfully present alien, would you agree to stop or at least pause in your support for unlimited immigration?” Finally: “Research indicates that loose borders harm mostly black Americans in terms of depressed wages and lost job opportunities. Immigration also provides higher incomes and profits for businesses while redistributing wealth from the native poor to the native rich. Do those findings cause you to question your immigration advocacy?”
A decade ago, advocacy groups agreed to participate in such a discussion; the hypothetical others weren’t present. No matter how the moderator pressed for answers to questions about how many immigrants were too many, no specific response was forthcoming.
The moderator prefaced his questions by acknowledging that most legal and illegal immigrants are hard-working individuals who want better lives for their families and that, with the exception of having broken civil law by being in the U.S. without permission, most aliens are law abiding.
For their part, the pro-immigration debaters insisted that family reunification remain unchanged and that employment-based immigration continue indefinitely. And while vaguely concurring that some numerical limits should be set, none of the participants was willing to set a fixed total. Either speaking on behalf of their group or expressing a personal opinion, the participants refused to discuss, even hypothetically, what the maximum number of immigrants should be or what might represent permissible enforcement regulations. Advocates repeatedly stressed what they perceived as immigration law’s “inhumanity,” but at the same time wouldn’t specifically define why open borders should be perceived as humane. In summary, the open borders coalition demanded unlimited immigration, but rejected border or interior enforcement as quid pro quos.
Ten years later, the Biden administration has rewarded immigration advocates with a clearcut victory. Their immigration wish list, identified a decade ago, has come true beyond their wildest imaginations. While Congress hasn’t passed an amnesty per se, interior enforcement is gutted, making removal unlikely for most illegal immigrants. Moreover, many of the millions of migrants have been granted parole, a misused and abused immigration status that includes work authorization. Not precisely an employment-based visa, parole nevertheless effectively provides the same affirmative immigration benefit – legal access to U.S. jobs.
Going beyond complying with advocates’ wish list, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has diluted the citizenship test. Long used as the basic guideline for identifying which among the recently arrived lawful permanent residents qualify for coveted naturalization, the standards have been dramatically loosened. USCIS director Ur M. Jaddou said that, under certain circumstances, the exam can be bypassed. This represents how the agency “is removing barriers to naturalization…” Jaddou’s reasoning: the public is “better served” by “eliminating questions and language barriers that no longer have practical utility and were redundant.”
At first glance, the Biden administration through its various immigration violations, which some dismiss as merely loosening inconvenient laws, is an overt attempt to swell the Democratic voter base, especially among Hispanics. But with porous borders having pushed Hispanic voters away, the inescapable conclusion is that the administration’s primary goal is to cancel, by any and all possible means, sovereign America.
Imagine if White House officials, the Chamber of Commerce, the establishment media, corporate America and ethnic identity advocacy groups agreed to an immigration roundtable. Then, further imagine that the moderator asked three questions.
The first question: “Given that fiscal year 2022 ended with a record 2.4 million migrant encounters exclusive of 599,000 known ‘gotaways,’ but including 238,000 in September alone, how many more migrants should be admitted before enforcement begins?”
Second: “Assuming Congress passes amnesty for every unlawfully present alien, would you agree to stop or at least pause in your support for unlimited immigration?” Finally: “Research indicates that loose borders harm mostly black Americans in terms of depressed wages and lost job opportunities. Immigration also provides higher incomes and profits for businesses while redistributing wealth from the native poor to the native rich. Do those findings cause you to question your immigration advocacy?”
A decade ago, advocacy groups agreed to participate in such a discussion; the hypothetical others weren’t present. No matter how the moderator pressed for answers to questions about how many immigrants were too many, no specific response was forthcoming.
The moderator prefaced his questions by acknowledging that most legal and illegal immigrants are hard-working individuals who want better lives for their families and that, with the exception of having broken civil law by being in the U.S. without permission, most aliens are law abiding.
For their part, the pro-immigration debaters insisted that family reunification remain unchanged and that employment-based immigration continue indefinitely. And while vaguely concurring that some numerical limits should be set, none of the participants was willing to set a fixed total. Either speaking on behalf of their group or expressing a personal opinion, the participants refused to discuss, even hypothetically, what the maximum number of immigrants should be or what might represent permissible enforcement regulations. Advocates repeatedly stressed what they perceived as immigration law’s “inhumanity,” but at the same time wouldn’t specifically define why open borders should be perceived as humane. In summary, the open borders coalition demanded unlimited immigration, but rejected border or interior enforcement as quid pro quos.
Ten years later, the Biden administration has rewarded immigration advocates with a clearcut victory. Their immigration wish list, identified a decade ago, has come true beyond their wildest imaginations. While Congress hasn’t passed an amnesty per se, interior enforcement is gutted, making removal unlikely for most illegal immigrants. Moreover, many of the millions of migrants have been granted parole, a misused and abused immigration status that includes work authorization. Not precisely an employment-based visa, parole nevertheless effectively provides the same affirmative immigration benefit – legal access to U.S. jobs.
Going beyond complying with advocates’ wish list, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has diluted the citizenship test. Long used as the basic guideline for identifying which among the recently arrived lawful permanent residents qualify for coveted naturalization, the standards have been dramatically loosened. USCIS director Ur M. Jaddou said that, under certain circumstances, the exam can be bypassed. This represents how the agency “is removing barriers to naturalization…” Jaddou’s reasoning: the public is “better served” by “eliminating questions and language barriers that no longer have practical utility and were redundant.”
At first glance, the Biden administration through its various immigration violations, which some dismiss as merely loosening inconvenient laws, is an overt attempt to swell the Democratic voter base, especially among Hispanics. But with porous borders having pushed Hispanic voters away, the inescapable conclusion is that the administration’s primary goal is to cancel, by any and all possible means, sovereign America.
Joe Guzzardi is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist who writes about immigration and related social issues. Joe joined Progressives for Immigration Reform in 2018 as an analyst after a ten-year career directing media relations for Californians for Population Stabilization, where he also was a Senior Writing Fellow. A native Californian, Joe now lives in Pennsylvania. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.
After the most recent redistricting our 165th Pa house District went from being represented by Leanne Kruger to Jennifer O’Mara, basically an exchange of one Democrat for another. Then a blank GOP line was seized by Nichole Missino.
Then retired Swarthmore scientist Bill Foster decided that he would run and realizing the other two party lines were taken over, decided to create his own party.
He gathered enough signatures to acquire ballot status, and thus we have three Candidates running for one seat. But then the weekly Swarthmorean came out on Thursday. The letter from former Swarthmore Borough Council member Lauren McKinney began “Will someone explain why we need an independent “middle of the road” candidate to run against incumbent Jenn O’Mara for the 165th District?”
The party system attacks our ability to choose a candidate that will represent most of us, he says. He feels the major parties “value campaign donation and election victories more than our welfare”.
Bill promises that he will “work for legislation that requires committees to create their agendas in public well before their meetings”.
The Swarthmore Borough Councol and Committees now have their agendas available online at least 24 hours before the meeting. He is also a proponent of ranked-choice voting.
He believes “Harrisburg has put so much work onto school boards and their central office administrators that they have become overwhelmed, unresponsive, and inaccessible”.
“We can fix county systems so child abuse information is shared and children are not left in danger,” he says.
Part of his extensive resume includes a stint with the Peace Corps, five years as a volunteer with the Council Rock School Board (Pa’s 12th largest). Other volunteer stints include working with Swarthmore Borough, Swarthmore Boy Scouts, and the Delaware County Citizen Corps, and others.
To return to the beginning, why do we need yet another term of Jenn O’Mara as opposed to one of the other candidates, who have never had the chance to change things.
There are two independent candidates on Pennsylvania’s 2022 ballot.
James Love Jackson and Rob Ronky are challengers in State House races, running against candidates endorsed by the major parties.
Rob Ronky is running in the 29th District against Tim Brennan (D) and Diane Smith (GOP).
The 29th District is in Bucks County and includes Buckingham, Doylestown, Solebury, Chalfont, New Britain and New Hope.
Rob Ronky
Republican incumbent Meghan Schroeder decided not to seek re-election in February.
Rob’s career includes stints with Dream with Ukraine.
“I would support open primaries where people can vote across party registration and I would support a national primary,” he says.
He says he wants more money spent on infrastructure including bike lanes and sidewalks.
He wants “kids to be taught a second language earlier than 8th grade” though he doesn’t advocate for a specific language,
He cites him mother and his wife as his role models.
Much the way Dr. Oz has advocated he says “we need officials that can come up with a compromise”.
The other independent candidate is James Love Jackson from the 190th Pa House District. He seems to be running a stealth campaign as there is very little information on him in the internet, besides his name.
Between today and Jan. 3, when the 118th Congress convenes, the nation may undergo a shift away from the party that minimizes border security to the party that favors enforcement and a more rational immigration policy. The outcome will depend on more than the Election Night results.
A hotly contested lame-duck session that will include a major amnesty push will play a significant role in the political dynamic of the next two years. Voters have consistently rejected amnesty because legalizing illegal immigrants incentivizes future illegal immigration waves, immediately expands the labor market, thereby harming U.S. workers, most particularly the 4 million that turn 18 each year, and vulnerable low-skilled, American job seekers.
Lame-duck sessions represent opportunities for the outgoing Congress to make one final push for their pet causes, even though, despite their terms in office, they’ve been unable to legislatively achieve their personal wish list. From the defeated or retired legislators’ perspectives, since they’re no longer accountable to their constituents, they have nothing to lose.
Efforts to end lame-duck sessions, dating back 90 years, have failed. The 20th Amendment, approved in 1933, was originally drafted to eliminate the lame duck. The amendment’s proponents argued that lame ducks were subject to nefarious influences. Moreover, passing lame-duck legislation might contradict the voices of the people as expressed in the last election. But the 20th Amendment didn’t definitively prohibit lame-duck sessions. Instead, dodging its original intention, the amendment simply moved the date on which the newly elected President and Congress took office from March to January.
Since the 20th Amendment didn’t kill off the lame duck, Congress will have to deal with it. If Democrats prevail in November, then a disastrous amnesty and other immigration-expanding measures are possible. More immigration has a host of Capitol Hill allies: religious and academic institutions, special interest groups, social media, big business and lobbyists who spent $3.7 billion to influence peddle targeted congressional members.
Higher immigration levels mean more consumers, and more cheap labor, so naturally corporate interests favor higher immigration levels. Democrats are united and tireless in their commitment and determination to enact amnesty. Last year, Democrats tried to sneak amnesty into a larger budget bill. This bill was scheduled to go through the reconciliation process, meaning it would only require a simple majority to pass, and the problematic filibuster would have been avoided. But the Senate Parliamentarian had to confirm that the bill’s contents specifically dealt with the federal budget.
Democrats unconvincingly argued that giving millions of illegal aliens legal status was a budgetary matter. Nevertheless, the Parliamentarian ruled against all three amnesty attempts.
Big business, anticipating December, is hard at work with a multifaceted game plan that includes multiple immigration provisions in unrelated amendments that it wants to include in the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act. The amendments would give more low- and high-skilled workers legal U.S. work permission.
Other amnesty schemes are afoot. California Senator Alex Padilla, appointed to replace Vice President Kamala Harris, is working in concert with Illinois Senator Dick Durbin to change registry laws to allow illegal immigrants to apply for permanent residence after they’ve lived in the U.S. for at least seven years, legalizing about 8 million illegal aliens. Padilla’s proposal reflects Democrats’ mindset – all roads can lead to amnesty.
When the lame-duck period begins, one fundamental principal should guide the GOP – no amnesty deals! The U.S. has more immigration than the nation can manage. More than 1 million lawful permanent residents arrive annually; millions more enter on employment visas, and fiscal year 2022 ended with a staggering 2,378,944 migrant border encounters, the highest ever recorded, but exclusive of the 599,000 known “gotaways” that Customs and Border Protection agents estimate eluded capture, but including an estimated 78 on the FBI’s terrorist watch list.
Since the only way to ban the lame duck would be through another constitutional amendment, Democrats and Republicans could adopt a civil tone if just for a few weeks. The parties could agree that a lame-duck session cannot create major legislation and simply let the next Congress take up leftover business.
Joe Guzzardi is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist who writes about immigration and related social issues. Joe joined Progressives for Immigration Reform in 2018 as an analyst after a ten-year career directing media relations for Californians for Population Stabilization, where he also was a Senior Writing Fellow. A native Californian, Joe now lives in Pennsylvania. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.
