A BIDEN PRESIDENCY PORTENDS ASSAULT ON OUR CONSTITUTION AND ON A FREE REPUBLIC

DEBATE THIS

U.S. Presidential elections are never small matters. But, this coming Presidential election, less than three months away, takes on inordinate importance—more so than any other Presidential election in our Nation’s history. For, depending on the outcome, Americans will either preserve their history, along with their sacred heritage, culture, and Christian ethos, or they will lose all of it. Recent events bear this out.

The continuation of our Nation in the form our founders established for the American people, a free Constitutional Republic, and a sovereign people rests in the fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights bestowed on them and in them by the loving Divine Creator—rights codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights: most importantly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the right of free speech.

A reasonable person need not guess but knows there are forces both inside and outside our Nation that intend to destroy our free Republic and to subjugate our people. This has been well underway for thirty years.

Americans certainly sensed it. They saw it in those who previously served as U.S. President.

The process to destroy our Country and to subjugate the American people had been well underway for thirty years. Americans certainly sensed it; saw it in the characters that had served as U.S. President: two Bushes, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. The process to undermine the Nation was expected to continue under another Clinton, Hillary, but that process was derailed.

Those forces were in for a shock. The shoo-in for the President lost, and the meticulously orchestrated process to destroy our Republic derailed.

The electorate voted into Office a successful businessman, not a Washington politician, Donald J. Trump.

The electorate voted into Office a populist; an outsider, not a Washington, D.C. politician. They voted into Office a successful businessman who swore to bring the Nation back to its roots, Donald J. Trump, and President Trump has done his best to do so, much to the anger of the a multitude of forces arrayed against him.

Not surprisingly, the pushback against Trump came swiftly and severely. The pushback came from multiple quarters within our Nation. These repugnant, reprehensible forces include a loose coalition of Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, Neoconservative Statists, Neoliberal Globalists, and Radical Feminists. Not surprisingly, they would back an individual whom they know they can control. demonstrating to all Americans just how extensive and complete the infiltration of our Nation by seditious forces was. And, those forces aligned against Trump never, for one moment, eased up on their assault against Trump, his Administration, his family and his domestic and foreign policies.

Unperturbed, Donald Trump worked tirelessly, doggedly during these past four years, doing his best to preserve to our Nation in the form the founders gave to us; and it has been no easy task for him, and painful for those who voted for him, to watch.

Americans saw firsthand how relentless the assault on the 45^th President of the United Sates became and how vengeful they could be. Americans witnessed ludicrous attempts to oust him from Office. Americans saw ruthless personal assaults on both Trump and his staff; and horrendous acts of sabotage by seditious spies and saboteurs, planted inside the Administration. As if that were not bad enough, Americans bore witness even to attacks on his family, including his youngest son, a mere child.

Unperturbed Trump soldiered on, ever mindful of his Oath of Office, set forth in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, and of the faith the American electorate placed in him to adhere to his Oath. All attempts to oust Donald Trump have, fortunately, failed and failed miserably.

At their wit’s end, unable to oust Trump from Office or to unnerve him emotionally, these malevolent, malignant, sinister forces aligned against the American people dare to end the Trump Presidency and crush the American citizenry into submission. But they must now do so at the voting booth. That is all they have left. And who have they selected? It is Joseph R. Biden, the proverbial politician.

Biden is nothing more than a doddering fool; a physical, emotional wreck of a man; a mentally feeble, corrupt and corrupting figure; a man lacking conviction, moral compass, or even a sense of purpose; a specter; a shell of a man; more dead than alive—Biden is someone who will not and cannot lead a Nation; someone who is, unsurprisingly, emblematic of and perfectly suited to the task of serving as a figurehead; a stand-in for those forces that seek only to increase their personal monetary wealth at the expense of the Nation, and to usurp the power from the American people, dragging an independent, sovereign Nation State down to ruin.

The electorate has but one opportunity to save itself and the Nation and so, the electorate has a critical decision to make: it can retain the 45^th President of the United States, Donald Trump, for a second term, or it can vote in a simulacrum and totem in Trump’s stead, i.e., Joe Biden. But——

CAN AMERICANS EXPECT A FAIR ELECTION IN NOVEMBER?

The forces that have rallied against Trump have no intention of permitting a fair election. They have no intention of permitting the public to catch anything more than a glimpse of their decrepit choice for U.S. President. That is clear and obvious.

In the few instances where Biden’s handlers allow him to speak at all, Biden’s mental confusion manifests itself excruciatingly and embarrassingly to all who bear witness to his public speeches.

Understandably, Biden’s handlers would wish to keep him under wraps and they have been successful in doing so, as much as they can, given, after all, that the public expects to see a person who would be President of the United States if only, once in a while. But can they prevent Biden from debating Trump one-on-one? The Press has presented arguments against a debate, but those arguments are hardly convincing and plausible, as Fox News reports:

“As the 2020 election steadily approaches, there have been growing calls from the media for Joe Biden not to debate President Trump or the debates to be scrapped altogether.

There appears to have been an evolution from some members of the media regarding the debates. Back in June, an op-ed in The Washington Post declared ‘it’s time to rethink the presidential debates.’

Columnist Karen Tumulty laid out suggestions to improve the political matchups like getting rid of a live audience and conducting them in a television studio. As she noted, the elimination of a crowd would make it more challenging for Trump to “pull stunts,” citing his invitation of four Bill Clinton accusers during his town hall debate with Hillary Clinton.

However, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote a piece in July urging Biden not to debate the president unless “two conditions” were met.

‘I worry about Joe Biden debating Donald Trump. He should do it only under two conditions. Otherwise, he’s giving Trump unfair advantages,’ Friedman began his op-ed.

Friedman said the ‘conditions’ should be that Trump must release his tax returns from 2016 to 2018, and that both campaigns should agree on having a ‘real-time fact-checking team’ hired by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.

The columnist suggested ‘10 minutes before the scheduled conclusion of the debate, this team report on any misleading statements, phony numbers or outright lies either candidate had uttered. That way no one in that massive television audience can go away easily misled.’

The Times columnist said the debates will not be a ‘good way’ for Biden to ‘reintroduce himself’ to the American people—particularly during the coronavirus outbreak when the former vice president has largely hunkered down in his Delaware home instead of being out on the campaign trail.

‘He should not go into such a high-stakes moment ceding any advantages to Trump,’ Friedman wrote. ‘Trump is badly trailing in the polls, and he needs these debates much more than Biden does to win over undecided voters.’”

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEE THEIR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES DEBATE WITHIN THEIR VERBAL CROSSHAIRS

The forces that wish to defeat Trump in November express justifiable concern if there’s a debate.

Joe Biden would crumple, and they know it. Even assuming the assistance of sympathetic debate moderators, Trump would flay Biden alive. Biden would have nowhere to hide.

Trump has shown his mettle in resisting relentless, vicious, virulent, vile attacks by Democrats and the Press.

It is difficult to believe Biden could withstand the pressures a U.S. President must contend with. Trump has become a tested, battle-hardened warrior. Biden, in comparison, hasn’t even undertaken basic training. He would be manipulated by and intimidated by others.

In the few instances where Biden’s handlers have allowed him to speak at all, Biden’s mental confusion manifests itself. It is excruciating and embarrassing to watch. He is a man obviously in the throes of irremediable, crippling dementia.

Understandably, Biden’s handlers would wish to keep him under wraps. But, the public wants, even demands, to see how Biden stacks up one-on-one against Trump. So, despite the many serious and obvious risks, Biden’s handlers and supporters have had to acquiesce to the call for debates, however grudgingly.

“The nationally televised presidential debate occupies a role of singular significance in American politics. In sheer scope of importance, in extent of audience interest and breadth of media coverage, the debate stands alone among campaign events. In short, in an age in which the importance of media exposure for informing the electorate, amassing voter support, and waging a successful campaign is axiomatic, televised presidential debates matter.” “Non-Major-Party Candidates and Televised Presidential Debates The Merits Of Legislative Inclusion., 141 U. Pa. L. Rev. 973, January, 1993, by Keith Darren Eisner, Cornell University; J.D. Candidate 1993, University of Pennsylvania.

Consider the results of the 1960 election.

“Over 100 million Americans saw at least one of the debates, and the average audience for the four debates was around 71 million viewers. These viewers saw a contrast in images and styles that ultimately helped determine the winner of the 1960 election. . . . Post-election polls found 57% of voters reporting that the candidates’ performances in the debates had ultimately influenced their voting choice; 6% reported that they based their final decision on the debates alone—and Kennedy won the support of 72% of this group. If the poll results are accurate, then two million people voted for Kennedy strictly on the basis of the debates—a margin more than sufficient to change the outcome of the election.” “The Designated Nonpublic Forum: Remedying the Forbes Mistake,” 67 Alb. L. Rev. 89, 2003, by Tim Cramm, M.D., University Of Arkansas, 1997; J.D., University Of Iowa, 2002.

Americans expect debates, and they have a right to see how the two candidates for the highest post in the Land fair against each other; battling it out one-on-one in the Gladiatorial Arena of political debates. For tens of millions of Americans, U.S. Presidential debates allow these Americans a rare opportunity, indeed the only opportunity, to view the candidates side-by-side. Not only can the electorate compare political track records and the policy stances of each candidate, the electorate is able to decipher at once, who is the most commanding person—who, in fact, looks and acts and holds himself out as the more “Presidential.” If Americans follow no other political news, they will watch a U.S. Presidential debate. A Presidential debate is akin to Football’s Super Bowl.

How many times, during the last four years has the Press been heard to chant, ad nauseum, the absurd claim that President Trump doesn’t act, “Presidential?” Yet, for all these inane attacks on Trump’s character and bearing,  it is most curious that there has been a paucity of Press coverage suggesting that Biden has the strength of character and bearing of a U.S. President.

Is the reticence of the Press accidental on that score? Obviously not.

Had Biden been the incumbent, instead of Trump, one might make a plausible argument that, as incumbent, Biden need not debate and should avoid doing so, as the public would have had four years to view him as President and he would wish to stand on his record, assuming he were not an total flop, and if the latter were the case, that would be reason to avoid debating as well. But Trump has succeeded. And that is all the more remarkable given the sinister forces at work, and still at work, that have placed constant and formidable obstacles in his path.

But, generally, where a person is the challenger, it is bizarre to argue that a challenger need not debate a sitting President.

In fact, the challenger should want to go head-to-head with the incumbent; should, in fact, insist on it. But Biden’s assertions that he is looking forward to debating Trump are few and far between. He is allowing his handlers to make that decision for him; claiming, implausibly, that Biden is ahead in the polls and that is reason enough not to debate Trump. But is he really ahead in the polls and, if that were true, would that argument, propounded by the Radical Left New York Times reporter, Friedman, supra,  be reason enough to avoid a debate.

Recall that most polls asserted that Hillary Clinton was ahead of or way ahead of Donald Trump, in the running for U.S. President, assuming the stories the Press was feeding Americans were really true. In any event, no one, including Clinton herself, professed an unwillingness to debate Trump. Nonetheless, she received plenty of help from the Press, when she did debate him.

The Press fervently wanted to see Clinton as President, no less so than Clinton herself, who unabashedly lusted over that prize. Each wanted to debate the other for the U.S. Presidency. They were both contenders for the Champion’s Belt.

Yet it is now Trump who, as the sitting President, is constantly and avidly calling for debates: several debates and he is chomping at the bit to do so; not so Biden, nor Biden’s handlers. If Biden’s handlers truly thought that Biden had the edge on Trump, on the debate stage, or that Biden was at least Trump’s equal, they would be calling for more debates, not fewer debates; and they would be calling for debates at an earlier stage before the election, not, as they have done, setting up a debate schedule, commencing at the end of September, one month before the election, when many early votes have already been cast. One would also expect that Biden would have taken control of the process and demanded an opportunity to push up the schedule, not permit his handlers to dictate the debate schedule, pushing that schedule as far back as possible. This is all singularly odd; the reversal of what one would expect.

Consider the relationship of a Champion prizefighter to a Contender. The Champ doesn’t have to prove himself and would have practical reason enough not to take on any further contenders as he, having reached the pinnacle of success, having proved himself worthy of the title from so many scrapes on his way to the top, has nothing more to prove, nor to gain, from another battle, and he has everything to lose. But the Contender has everything to gain and nothing to lose. It is the Contender, then, who is the hungrier of the two fighters, not the Champ, and that makes perfect sense.

In the political sphere, recall that it was President Lyndon Johnson who refrained from debating his challenger Barry Goldwater. It was Goldwater, the contender for the Presidency, who, after all, wished to debate Johnson, not the other way around, and that is understandable.

But, in the present instance, in this topsy-turvy political venue we are living in, it is Biden and his handlers who are shying away from debating Trump, and it is Trump, the Champion, who is itching for a fight.

Biden’s reluctance is doubly suspect given the fact that the Press incessantly attacks Trump’s own character and bearing, claiming that he is decidedly un-Presidential, but curiously never exclaims that Biden appears and acts Presidential.

You would think the Press would encourage a lively debate between Biden and Trump, but it doesn’t. Quite the opposite. It adamantly opposes a Trump and Biden match-up. And it isn’t hard to figure out why.

Biden is weak and intemperate. He is a little man. He is small in mind and body, and in will and spirit. Everyone knows that to be true. So, unlike a true Contender who relishes taking on the Champ in the Ring, who would, in fact, insist upon it, Biden’s handlers and the seditious Press expect Biden to claim the Champion’s Belt without undergoing the obligatory rite of passage: an actual bout.

If Biden does pull out a victory against Trump it can only occur through subterfuge. His handlers throw in the towel before he goes even one round with Trump yet would still audaciously claim a victory for Biden if they can get away with it through skullduggery.

In some dim part of Biden’s brain, he, himself, knows he is a fraud. He knows he is no match for Trump, either in intellect or in strength of will. So, like a petulant child, Biden is content merely to revert to name-calling from afar; careful never to face his nemesis face-to-face.

Biden is content to rely on a battalion of surrogates to do his fighting for him. It is remarkable that such a wimp would be able to garner any votes at all. In fact, those who support him do so out of self-interest. It is doubtful anyone in his camp respects him. He would be a travesty as President of the United States, but a fitting emblem of the Nation’s demise. And, if he were to actually make it all the way to the Office of U.S. President, he will be delegating all policy decisions to surrogates as well. This is evident enough now, as Biden has scrapped all pretense of being a political moderate that the Press has falsely claimed him to be, adopting, point-for-point, the policy planks of the most radical elements of the Democrat Party.

It would be remarkable that the wimp, Biden, would be able to garner any votes at all. But, then, those who support him do so out of self-interest. It is doubtful anyone in his camp respects him. He would be a travesty as President of the United States, and a fitting symbol of the Nation’s demise. So, Biden must be defeated. But—

CAN THE PUBLIC TRUST IN A FAIR, IMPARTIAL U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER?

Apart from the matter of U.S. Presidential debates, there is the real concern of voter fraud.

“It is unfortunately true that in the great democracy in which we live, voter fraud has had a long and studied role in our elections. Maintaining the security of our voter registration and voting process, while at the same time protecting the voting rights of individuals and guaranteeing their access to the polls, must be our foremost objective. Unlike what certain advocates in the civil rights community believe, these goals are not mutually exclusive. Every vote that is stolen through fraud disenfranchises a voter who has cast a legitimate ballot in the same way that an individual who is eligible to vote is disenfranchised when he is kept out of a poll or is somehow otherwise prevented from casting a ballot. In other words, violations of criminal election crimes statutes are just as important as violations of federal voting rights statutes and both cause equal damage to our democracy. “Securing the Integrity of American Elections: The Need for Change,” 9 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. 27, Spring, 2005, by Publius (pseudonym); Publius is an attorney who specializes in election issues.

Many politicians complain of disenfranchisement of people, when they argue against the need for ID to verify the legitimacy of the person who claims a right to vote. Many of these same politicians also argue for allowing convicted felons to vote, as well as allowing for illegal aliens the right to vote. While States may permit illegal aliens and convicted felons to vote in local elections, illegal aliens cannot lawfully vote in federal elections, and likely convicted felons, who have not secured a restoration of civil rights, cannot lawfully vote in federal elections either.

Voting by mail is becoming ubiquitous, overshadowing voting at polls, and may, eventually, become universal, making voting at polls obsolete. But, at what cost to the maintenance of honest elections? Is it really the answer to getting more Americans to vote?

“In the past, many states required voters who requested to vote by mail to provide an excuse for why they could not vote at the polls on election day [“absentee ballot voting”]. States often created lists of permissible excuses entitling voters to mail-in ballots. Today, twenty-seven states (and the District of Columbia) allow no-excuse absentee or mail-in voting.  Three states, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado, are experimenting with all-mail elections, doing away with polling places altogether.

In addition to expanded mail-in voting, many states have introduced and expanded early in-person voting opportunities (EIPV). As distinguished from voting by mail, EIPV allows voters to cast ballots at designated locations for a specified period before election day. Early voting garnered significant attention in the 2012 election. Campaigns pushed supporters to cast early ballots for a variety of strategic reasons. In 2012, President Obama became the first major presidential candidate to cast an early vote.” Id.

While the Press uniformly denies incessant and widespread voter fraud in previous State and federal elections, the critical impact of the coming election on the fate of the Nation, on the Constitution, and on the American people, should not be lost on anyone.

It is clear enough that the noxious, disgusting Radical Left and the wealthy, powerful, ruthless Globalist forces, both desirous of taking over the reins of Government don’t care one wit about the fairness of our elections. They only care in one thing: toppling Trump and taking control of both Houses of Congress, so they can continue where they had left off—after Trump “rudely” defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election—tearing down the Nation and eventually merging it into a new one-world governmental political, social, economic, and cultural scheme.

Four years of vicious, violent, virulent, unethical, even illegal attacks on Trump, his Administration, and those closely connected with him, demonstrate clear evidence that those malevolent, malignant forces aligned against Trump will use whatever means they can—legal, quasi-legal, or outright illegal—to prevail in November 2020.

At the very least, the electorate should not be in doubt that a person voting in the upcoming U.S. Presidential election has a legal right to vote. Voter ID procedures and all election procedures must be reasonable, fair, and impartial, thereby ensuring transparency and honesty in elections, true; but those responsible for establishing Voter ID and election procedures must be held absolutely accountable for the procedures they create and implement.

Mandating Voter ID in order to vote does not mean that a jurisdiction is imposing an inherently burdensome requirement on the electorate, and the reason for it is obvious. A person is simply asked to to provide concrete evidence that he or she is whom that person represents him or herself to be and that the person has a lawful right to vote.

Photo ID as issued by State motor vehicle departments have, traditionally, provided evidence of this. If adequate in the past, such licenses, though, are not, in some jurisdictions, adequate proof of citizenship today since some States, such as California and New York, are now issuing photo ID drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens. To deal effectively with the very real problem of illegal aliens voting in federal elections, Photo IDs today should also clearly set forth whether or not a person is a citizen of the United States and whether or not that person, if a citizen, is under any disability that would preclude his voting in a federal election as, for example, if a person were a convicted felon who has not been issued a valid relief from disability order from a Court of competent jurisdiction.

Those politicians who disagree with the requirement that a voter demonstrate his or her U.S. citizenship and that he or she is under no civil disability should be prepared to explain why they disapprove of such a requirement, beyond falling back on the imbecilic charge of “racism” that has become no more than a wearisome cliché, elicited like a burp or hiccough.

U.S. citizens, not under civil disability constraints, do have a right to vote, and they also have a right to demand that their elections be fair and honest.

Going into the November 2020 election, it is unfortunate that Americans will have no certainty that fraud won’t occur. The messy election outcomes we have seen of late would suggest that inefficiencies, mistakes, and, not least of all, massive fraud will be rampant in the ensuing general election.

A paucity of concern expressed by politicians over securing the upcoming U.S. Presidential election against rampant fraud is itself alarming and leads one to wonder whether the November election may not already be lost, and with that loss, whether we, Americans, have not already lost our Nation—a loss without a fight.

So, then, can the public be assured that the coming general election will be aboveboard and secure from fraud?

If voting by mail is the wave of the future, overshadowing voting at polls–becoming, eventually, universal–thereby making voting at polls obsolete, one has a right to ask: at what cost to honest elections? Making voting easier so that more Americans can vote in federal elections is one thing; but if such procedures also allow millions of illegal aliens and tens of thousands more convicted felons to cast their fraudulent votes, then ease of voting comes at a cost wholly out of proportion to any desired benefits.

“In the past, many states required voters who requested to vote by mail to provide an excuse for why they could not vote at the polls on election day [“absentee ballot voting”]. States often created lists of permissible excuses entitling voters to mail-in ballots. Today, twenty-seven states (and the District of Columbia) allow no-excuse absentee or mail-in voting.  Three states, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado, are experimenting with all-mail elections, doing away with polling places altogether.

In addition to expanded mail-in voting, many states have introduced and expanded early in-person voting opportunities (EIPV). As distinguished from voting by mail, EIPV allows voters to cast ballots at designated locations for a specified period before election day. Early voting garnered significant attention in the 2012 election. Campaigns pushed supporters to cast early ballots for a variety of strategic reasons. In 2012, President Obama became the first major presidential candidate to cast an early vote.” Id.

The forces driving Biden’s White-House bid don’t care how Biden comes to be elected U.S. President, as long as he is elected U.S. President. And, it appears more and more likely that this can come about only through deception. 

Will the upcoming November 2020 Presidential election be reasonable, fair, impartial, transparent, and honest? 

Biden’s image makers know the less the public sees and hears Biden, the better. Biden’s surrogates, a host of handlers, and a sympathetic, seditious Press have constructed a false image of Biden. It is a fragile image easily undercut through public appearances and shattered by a one-to-one match-up with Trump. This is precisely why the Press, along with Biden’s handlers, support early voting and why they seek to delay a Presidential debate.

Unfortunately, at this moment Americans have no certainty that massive voter fraud won’t occur. The messy election outcomes we have seen of late show inefficiencies and mistakes, both of which lend to the possibility of rampant fraud occurring in the general election.

Going into the November 2020 election, it is unfortunate that Americans will have no certainty that fraud won’t occur. The messy election outcomes we have seen of late would suggest that inefficiencies, mistakes, and, not least of all, massive fraud will be rampant in the ensuing general election.

A paucity of concern expressed by politicians over securing the upcoming U.S. Presidential election against rampant fraud is itself alarming and leads one to wonder whether the November election may not already be lost, and with that loss, whether we, Americans, have not already lost our Nation—a loss without a fight. And the Radical Leftists and Neoliberal Globalists would rather rely on subterfuge than an all-out war if they finally succeed in taking control of the Government through a quiet coup than by  violent overthrow.

Beyond the ramifications of the election process, there is the matter of Biden himself. Biden’s image makers know the less the public sees and hears Biden and hears of Biden, the better. Biden’s surrogates, a host of handlers, and a sympathetic, seditious Press have constructed a false image of Biden. It is a fragile image easily undercut through public appearances and shattered by a one-to-one match-up with Trump. This is precisely why the Press, along with Biden’s handlers, support early voting and why they seek to delay a Presidential debate.

The Radical Leftists and Neoliberal Globalists, frantically seeking to install their puppet, Biden, in the Oval Office, must therefore rely on, one, early voting; two, fraudulent mail-in voting; and, three, Presidential debate avoidance to enhance Biden’s chance of defeating Trump this November 2020. The impact of the Chinese Coronavirus on the upcoming election, along with the devastation wrought to the economy, can only help the Radical leftists and Neoliberal Globalists up to a point. The ransacking of American Cities and unjustified, unprovoked attacks on our community and federal police forces, along with the concomitant horrendous increase in crime, and the noticeably cavalier attitudes of Radical Left politicians toward constant riots, vandalism, arson, looting, wanton destruction of public and private property, and increasing numbers of assaults and murder on innocent people, is much more likely to hurt than help Biden’s bid for the Oval Office. 

But, if successful, the forces that have worked for decades to destroy our free Republic and to erase our Nation’s history, heritage, and culture will be able once again to press ahead with their plans, and they will likely succeed, as there will be nothing outside of outright civil war to return the Country back to the rightful owners: the American people. 

To prevent destruction of our Nation, Trump must prevail in November. Much is up to you.

________________________________________

Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.