Judge Napolitano: Are You Owned by the Government?


Recommended Posts

http://www.lewrockwe...litano28.1.html

So Long, America

by Andrew P. Napolitano

Recently by Andrew P. Napolitano: Are You Owned by the Government?

Here is Judge Napolitano's closing argument Thursday on his FreedomWatch.

Does the government work for us or do we work for the government? Tonight,

wars and rumors of war.

The United States was forged in a war: The American revolution. After the

rebels defeated the King, we were blessed with something unique in history;

a founding document, the Constitution, which was not imposed upon the

people but rather was ratified by them, and which set out to establish

strict limits on the federal government. The whole purpose of the

Constitution was to keep the government off the people's backs; to assure

that the new government here would never be as destructive of freedom and

property as the King had been; to guarantee that the government is the

servant and the people were the master; still a revolutionary idea even

today, more than 230 years later.

So what happened to the war machine that freed the American colonies of

their British masters? It was subsumed by the new government. The same

generation that fought an American revolution whose unifying principles

were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, ran a government that

violated those very principles. In the Whiskey Rebellion, President George

Washington shot and arrested farmers who refused to pay a federal tax on

booze they made at home; and under the Alien and Sedition Acts, President

John Adams prosecuted people for criticizing him.

The Revolutionary War was the beginning of the Republic and the Civil War

was the beginning of the end of the Republic. Prior to the Civil War, the

United States were plural; the country was called "these" United States.

Even the Constitution refers to the United States as "them." Afterwards,

the United States became a singular noun. The Civil War was the official

and violent rejection by the federal government of the basic principle laid

out in the Declaration of Independence which was cited as the impetus for

the American Revolution. What was that principle for which the rebels

fought and which, among our presidents, only Jefferson defended? It was the

right of free people to secede from a government that destroys their

freedom. It was, by extension, the natural right to be left alone.

Not only are wars inimical to our freedom, they are also cancers for

democracy. In the last 50 years, the United States has seen a parade of

wars that don’t serve our interests. We fought the Korean war at the behest

of the United Nations. We fought in Vietnam because the French wouldn’t. We

entered the First Gulf War because of the United Nations and of course that

led to the Iraq War. Even in Afghanistan, while we entered under the

pretext of hunting down the masterminds of 9/11, that war soon became an

imperial exercise akin to the Soviet or British occupations of Afghanistan.

The Constitution gives the power of declaring war to the Congress. But

today in America, that power is effectively the President’s. President

Obama has waged war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Pakistan, in

Somalia, and in Uganda; all without a declaration of war. The last time

Congress declared war was December 8th 1941.

War is the death of freedom because war is the health of big government.

The federal government views the Constitution as its enemy. That’s why the

President, a former professor of constitutional law nonetheless, can take

an oath to uphold the Constitution and then spend every waking moment

trying to dig its grave. And George W. Bush was the same. And Bill Clinton

was the same. And so on, and so on. If Barack Obama or George W. Bush told

you directly that their agenda was the destruction of your freedoms, you

wouldn’t buy it. But war and rumors of war allow the government to steal

your freedoms without you rising up to defend them.

In nearly three years in office, President Obama has conducted a campaign

to transform America through a process of government expansion and crony

capitalism. Yet, he may very well win re-election not because Americans

support more central planning and federal control of our lives, but because

he enjoys high approval ratings for fighting wars. Yet these wars are the

same policies that allow for the centralization of power in the federal

government on the domestic front. There wouldn’t have been an Obamacare if

there had never been a Patriot Act; because, when you allow your freedoms

to be trampled conditionally under the pretext of safety, then even those

freedoms you’d never dream of giving away become endangered.

In my new book, It is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong, I

argue that every empire falls because of an over-extended military. With

more than 900 bases on all seven continents, billions in annual military

aid to countries around the world, and active military operations in more

countries than we can know, the United States is digging in on its imperial

ambitions, even as those same ambitions are driving us bankrupt, exhausting

our resources, and destroying our freedoms. Is it worth it? The answer is

obvious.

From New York, defending freedom; so-long America.

November 11, 2011

Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court

of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel, and

the host of “FreedomWatch” on the Fox Business Network. His latest book is

It is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong: The Case for

Personal Freedom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks George:

Sad to say, he is correct.

Watching my country die was not what I thought would happen when I finished reading Atlas five (5) decades ago.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks George:

Sad to say, he is correct.

Watching my country die was not what I thought would happen when I finished reading Atlas five (5) decades ago.

Adam

Indeed. The Forever War will be our undoing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks George:

Sad to say, he is correct.

Watching my country die was not what I thought would happen when I finished reading Atlas five (5) decades ago.

Adam

In -Atlas Shrugged- the nation did die in order to be reborn. So things are going as predicted.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

We own the government.

A few questions and points for anarchist Judge Napolitano and for anyone reading this.

Now that Ayn Rand is more mainstream and not so heretical, in the coming years will there be a third swell in her acceptance and prominence? What other “heresies” will arise challenging conventional wisdom?

Ron Paul would insist that we can put a stop to those “forever wars” by minding our own business, but that might also mean NOT supporting Israel, accepting that other countries will become nuclear powers, (and keeping our fingers crossed for our own safety – after all, bitter enemies India and Pakistan have not annihilated each other yet) and exercising limited retaliations for future Nine Elevens.

If we leave the Pacific, China will dominate and create a greater hegemony. Taiwan will be absorbed or conquered so there will be less freedom in the world. Japan may continue to rearm in response.

If we leave Europe, and pull back in NATO it would be a better place. I don’t see Russia dominating the European Union.

We will be more prosperous.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks George:

Sad to say, he is correct.

Watching my country die was not what I thought would happen when I finished reading Atlas five (5) decades ago.

Adam

In -Atlas Shrugged- the nation did die in order to be reborn. So things are going as predicted.

Ba'al Chatzaf

True.

I just had hoped we could avoid the crash and burn scenario by educating folks. However, looks like it was inevitable. The assassinations of the '60's fundamentally broke a level of trust between the citizen and the government.

The ever pressuring progressive left saw it's opportunity at various levels and encysted in the system. Like viruses, they emerge more resistant to antibiotics as the state centralizes.

Throw in the wars, the social programing, the complete collapse of education, increased centralized power and rampant corruption and ergo, you have the present morass of centralized collective statism.

Oh well...

Once more into the breach my friends...[Henry V, Act III, 1598]

KING HENRY V:

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;

Or close the wall up with our English dead.

In peace there's nothing so becomes a man

As modest stillness and humility:

But when the blast of war blows in our ears,

Then imitate the action of the tiger;

Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,

Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;

Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;

Let pry through the portage of the head

Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it

As fearfully as doth a galled rock

O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,

Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.

Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,

Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit

To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.

Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!

Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,

Have in these parts from morn till even fought

And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:

Dishonour not your mothers; now attest

That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.

Be copy now to men of grosser blood,

And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,

Whose limbs were made in England, show us here

The mettle of your pasture; let us swear

That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;

For there is none of you so mean and base,

That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.

I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit, and upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

We own the government.

A few questions and points for anarchist Judge Napolitano and for anyone reading this.

Now that Ayn Rand is more mainstream and not so heretical, in the coming years will there be a third swell in her acceptance and prominence? What other “heresies” will arise challenging conventional wisdom?

Ron Paul would insist that we can put a stop to those “forever wars” by minding our own business, but that might also mean NOT supporting Israel, accepting that other countries will become nuclear powers, (and keeping our fingers crossed for our own safety – after all, bitter enemies India and Pakistan have not annihilated each other yet) and exercising limited retaliations for future Nine Elevens.

If we leave the Pacific, China will dominate and create a greater hegemony. Taiwan will be absorbed or conquered so there will be less freedom in the world. Japan may continue to rearm in response.

If we leave Europe, and pull back in NATO it would be a better place. I don’t see Russia dominating the European Union.

We will be more prosperous.

Peter

Why on earth would you call Napolitano an "anarchist"? He is a limited government constitutionalist.

Ghs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ghs wrote:

“Why on earth would you call Napolitano an "anarchist"? He is a “limited government constitutionalist.”

end quote

He said, in his heart he was a “rational anarchist," when he filled in for Glenn Beck. He used his own terminology. Obviously, a Judge would know there could never be a part of a competing Judiciary in America unless it abided by and tolerated by the Federal Government. But I know what he means: an all-consuming sense of Self Sovereignty possessed by most Americans, even those of us who swear allegiance to the United States of America.

I will even say especially possessed in abundance, “by those of us who swear allegiance to the United States” as do our nation’s military and first responders. Atlas has not yet shrugged, except in your book. He is stretching though.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

The next big war will be instigated by Israel and The U.S. in August or September. Israel is afraid of the bomb and Obama wants to get re-elected. The basic conflict is actually between Saudi Arabia and Iran with Iran being much the stronger except the Saudis have the U.S. in their back pocket--Israel too, for the irony. Both those countries, however, want that oil to keep moving.

The U.S. has been self-hypnotized by the power and extent of its naval and air forces in the area and it's tempting to use them. That's always been the case with the American State. In the meantime--between now and summer--Israel will keep rattling the bars of its cage. The problem for the Jews is they've traded the collective security, such as it was, of the Diaspora for the ghetto of Israel, which is an effective de facto extension of Hitler's war against them. The apparent history of that is he wanted to export them pre-Holocaust. They self-exported eventually--what was left of them. While Zionism is quite understandable historically, it has been a disaster for European Jewry; it put them on the German revenge, whipping-boy list for WWI and its aftermath. This isn't blaming the victims, the Jews; it's blaming Zionism, not only the Germans, the leaders of which had the gall to make a deal with the British government to get the U.S. into WWI. That Zionism in turn was an answer to the horrible pogroms and anti-Semitism of 19th C. Europe, only means everything is based on something.

When they founded Israel the Jews in the following decades should have conquered much more territory and bred like rabbits while eschewing socialism. Unfortunately for them they didn't and Israel will be eventually conquered by demographics if that bomb they are so afraid of doesn't smash Tel Aviv.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

When they founded Israel the Jews in the following decades should have conquered much more territory and bred like rabbits. Unfortunately for them they didn't and Israel will be eventually conquered by demographics if that bomb they are so afraid of doesn't smash Tel Aviv.

--Brant

QFT. On the basis of demographics, Israel is doomed. Another 60 years maybe, perhaps a little more. I am glad I won't be alive to see the inevitable happen.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

The next big war will be instigated by Israel and The U.S. in August or September. Israel is afraid of the bomb and Obama wants to get re-elected. The basic conflict is actually between Saudi Arabia and Iran with Iran being much the stronger except the Saudis have the U.S. in their back pocket--Israel too, for the irony. Both those countries, however, want that oil to keep moving.

The U.S. has been self-hypnotized by the power and extent of its naval and air forces in the area and it's tempting to use them. That's always been the case with the American State. In the meantime--between now and summer--Israel will keep rattling the bars of its cage. The problem for the Jews is they've traded the collective security, such as it was, of the Diaspora for the ghetto of Israel, which is an effective de facto extension of Hitler's war against them. The apparent history of that is he wanted to export them pre-Holocaust. They self-exported eventually--what was left of them. While Zionism is quite understandable historically, it has been a disaster for European Jewry; it put them on the German revenge, whipping-boy list for WWI and its aftermath. This isn't blaming the victims, the Jews; it's blaming Zionism, not only the Germans, the leaders of which had the gall to make a deal with the British government to get the U.S. into WWI. That Zionism in turn was an answer to the horrible pogroms and anti-Semitism of 19th C. Europe, only means everything is based on something.

When they founded Israel the Jews in the following decades should have conquered much more territory and bred like rabbits while eschewing socialism. Unfortunately for them they didn't and Israel will be eventually conquered by demographics if that bomb they are so afraid of doesn't smash Tel Aviv.

--Brant

Brant:

Excellent analysis. One that I have been avoiding accepting. I think your explanation and "naming" the self ghettoization of the Jewish population into Isreal is damn brilliant.

I have been coming to the fortress America paradigm for almost a year now. It is time.

Unfortunately, the marxist in the White House and the other entreched powers will more than likely follow the insanely stupid path to the continuing war.

What stupidity.

Adam

hat tip to Brant 733250rvqirurq07.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

QFT. On the basis of demographics, Israel is doomed. Another 60 years maybe, perhaps a little more. I am glad I won't be alive to see the inevitable happen.

The majority needs a democratic/egalitarian Zeitgeist to have power. Without that, their numbers are meaningless.

I don't believe that Zeitgeist to be still there in 60 years from now, it's eroding fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"...Zeitgeist..."

Is this how you are using the word?

Zeitgeist (German pronunciation: [ˈtsaɪtɡaɪst] (13px-Speaker_Icon.svg.png listen)) is "the spirit of the times" or "the spirit of the age." [1] Zeitgeist is the general cultural, intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and/or political climate within a nation or even specific groups, along with the general ambiance, morals, sociocultural direction, and mood associated with an era.

The term is a loanword from German Zeit – "time" (cognate with English "tide" and "time") and Geist – "spirit" (cognate with English "ghost").

Origins

The concept of Zeitgeist goes back to Johann Gottfried Herder and other German Romanticists, such as Cornelius Jagdmann, but is best known in relation to Hegel's philosophy of history. In 1769 Herder wrote a critique of the work Genius seculi by the philologist Christian Adolph Klotz and introduced the word Zeitgeist into German as a translation of genius seculi (Latin: genius - "guardian spirit" and saeculi - "of the age").

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, well, looking back into history and looking into the future are nice if you enjoy pattern-seeking.

Normally we have to think for the here and now, sort of like the Puritans did, or the French and Dutch Huguenots, or any repressed peoples. The Jews made a collective decision that may be regretted in time to come, but little different from the South African settlers, or the American, there were few options.

That it may have only gathered their necks for the leash, will never be an indictment of a brave, rational, and moral series of decisions to seek autonomy, once and for all, from an irrational, insane Europe and Russia.

With not much interest in all that Judaic 'holy land' stuff, I would like to think I would have had the foresight and courage to have been an early Zionist.

But rumours of Israel's impending doom, may be slightly premature...

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

"...Zeitgeist..."

Is this how you are using the word?

Yes, I believe the meaning in English is the same as in German.

I'm not sure what word Rand used for it, I think it was cultural or intellectual climate.

She praised the one during the 19th century and resented the direction in which it was heading. I believe that direction climaxed in the West in the 90s and is now heading backwards towards what Rand (and I) consider to be good (elistist, heroic, pro-values, etc.). I'm optimistic for the backlash to come much faster.

It's also why I don't share your pessimism about America. I think America's going to be fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, well, looking back into history and looking into the future are nice if you enjoy pattern-seeking.

Normally we have to think for the here and now, sort of like the Puritans did, or the French and Dutch Huguenots, or any repressed peoples. The Jews made a collective decision that may be regretted in time to come, but no different from the South African settlers, or the American, there were few options. Of the three, only one has gained a permanent foot-hold in their new country.

That it may have only gathered their necks for the leash, will never be an indictment of a brave, rational, and moral series of decisions to seek autonomy, once and for all, from an irrational, insane Europe and Russia.

With not the slightest interest in all that Judaic 'holy land' stuff, I would like to think I would have had the foresight and courage to have been a Zionist.

But rumours of Israel's impending doom, may be slightly premature...

:rolleyes:

I fully agree with you and especially want to applaud your bravery to include the south african settlers in that pattern.

The left is always quicker to see the parallels. The accusation of "apartheid" in the case of Israel is correct: In both cases it's a civilized people who defend themselves against the primitive, and in both cases the left is on the side of the primitive.

As I said in my other posting, it's the Zeitgeist that matters. When Americans gained a foothold there was no "international community" to use the alleged injustice against natives as a means to destroy a society of free men with moral blackmail. There was also little egalitarian superstition (few colleges too) and so the American settlers were free to deal with the natives the way they did.

Good for the Jews that they don't back down. When leftism faces its end in the West, they have won.

Link to post
Share on other sites

] I fully agree with you and especially want to applaud your bravery to include the south african settlers in that pattern. The left is always quicker to see the parallels. The accusation of "apartheid" in the case of Israel is correct: In both cases it's a civilized people who defend themselves against the primitive, and in both cases the left is on the side of the primitive. As I said in my other posting, it's the Zeitgeist that matters. When Americans gained a foothold there was no "international community" to use the alleged injustice against natives as a means to destroy a society of free men with moral blackmail. There was also little egalitarian superstition (few colleges too) and so the American settlers were free to deal with the natives the way they did. Good for the Jews that they don't back down. When leftism faces its end in the West, they have won.

John,

Some differences of opinion.

I have no doubt that one of the biggest problems faced by Israelis is their commitment to a morality (of value in life) that has not, and probably will not, be returned in kind, by their enemies.

Operating with such double standards is horrific.

But, in today's world, I don't believe it is rational to think of a bunch of people as savage. (That's where it started for the Jews'oppression, after all.) Primitive and evil ideologies by Hamas etc, are at fault - as those who support them. (Sadly, we are seeing only recently that the PA/Hamas are deliberately avoiding peace talks. Their bluff was called, and they have shown that peace is the last thing they want.)

I agree with the "left" idolizing the Palestinians as primitive 'under-dogs', who they'd secretly prefer never rise to anything of worth; that's how they are, beneath the p-c hypocrisy.

Also, no, the apartheid parallel is inaccurate, I feel.

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites

But, in today's world, I don't believe it is rational to think of a bunch of people as savage. (That's where it started for the Jews'oppression, after all.)

Jews were never hated for not being civilized enough. Anti-semitism comes from them being too wealthy, too apart, too selfish. You can see this in anti-semitism being connected with anti-ursury sentiments (today and two millenia ago).

Marx' article "On the Jewish Question" shows that very well. As I said, it's usually the left who understands it better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the link:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

The
German
Jew, in particular, is confronted by the general absence of political emancipation and the strongly marked Christian character of the state. In Bauer’s conception, however, the Jewish question has a universal significance, independent of specifically German conditions. It is the question of the relation of religion to the state, of the
contradiction between religious constraint and political emancipation
. Emancipation from religion is laid down as a condition, both to the Jew who wants to be emancipated politically, and to the state which is to effect emancipation and is itself to be emancipated.
“Very well,” it is said, and the Jew himself says it, “the Jew is to become emancipated not as a Jew, not because he is a Jew, not because he possesses such an excellent, universally human principle of morality; on the contrary, the
Jew
will retreat behind the
citizen
and be a
citizen
, although he is a Jew and is to remain a Jew. That is to say, he is and remains a
Jew
, although he is a
citizen
and lives in universally human conditions: his Jewish and restricted nature triumphs always in the end over his human and political obligations. The
prejudice
remains in spite of being outstripped by
general
principles. But if it remains, then, on the contrary, it outstrips everything else.”
“Only sophistically, only apparently, would the Jew be able to remain a Jew in the life of the state. Hence, if he wanted to remain a Jew, the mere appearance would become the essential and would triumph; that is to say, his
life in the state
would be only a semblance or only a temporary exception to the essential and the rule.” (“The Capacity of Present-Day Jews and Christians to Become Free,”
Einundzwanzig Bogen
, pp. 57)

Link to post
Share on other sites
But, in today's world, I don't believe it is rational to think of a bunch of people as savage. (That's where it started for the Jews'oppression, after all.)
Jews were never hated for not being civilized enough. Anti-semitism comes from them being too wealthy, too apart, too selfish. You can see this in anti-semitism being connected with anti-ursury sentiments (today and two millenia ago). Marx' article "On the Jewish Question" shows that very well. As I said, it's usually the left who understands it better.

You are right of course, it's not a good idea to post when I'm running out the door.

Behind my remark - what I badly tried to express - was the psychological "down-classing" that occurs when an irrational person or power desires repressing or eliminating others. To make him feel alright about what he intends, he has to "dehumanize" them for a period, first: eg 'herd' them into areas like livestock, and so on

Maybe the ugliest specimen of evasion (as Objectivistist-defined) that has existed.

A whole treatise could be written about the progressive left-ie and his view of other people.

It would begin with what he thinks of himself, of course. Only one phenomenon, his love of the noble savage, may be revealing.

Does egalitarianism and low self-worth lead one to the requirement of a 'sub-class' of humans to look down upon?

As you say, the left understand too well the worst of humanity- where a proud and honest man would be confused and uncertain.

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does egalitarianism and low self-worth lead one to the requirement of a 'sub-class' of humans to look down upon?

Is there anybody who doesn't look down upon some people or groups of people?

Leftists do it, Rand did it, and I don't know of anybody who doesn't, even if to a lesser extent.

You should do that, you only also should better do it right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does egalitarianism and low self-worth lead one to the requirement of a 'sub-class' of humans to look down upon?

Is there anybody who doesn't look down upon some people or groups of people?

Leftists do it, Rand did it, and I don't know of anybody who doesn't, even if to a lesser extent.

You should do that, you only also should better do it right.

John:

Now there is an interesting assertion.

"...looking down..."

Now how, precisely, would you define that phrase?

Can we define it without a pejorative intent?

Adam

querying away...

Link to post
Share on other sites
"...looking down..."

Now how, precisely, would you define that phrase?

Can we define it without a pejorative intent?

I don't think so. When you value, that means that in your eyes some things are better than others. Applied to human beings, that necessarily implies an insult to some.

The only way to avoid that is not to value human beings at all, which is amoralism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"...looking down..."

Now how, precisely, would you define that phrase?

Can we define it without a pejorative intent?

I don't think so. When you value, that means that in your eyes some things are better than others. Applied to human beings, that necessarily implies an insult to some.

The only way to avoid that is not to value human beings at all, which is amoralism.

John:

Let's use the connotation of the word discriminate/discrimination:

Etymology

From the Latin discriminatio (accusative discriminationem), the action noun to discriminare "to discriminate".

Learned Latinism in English use from the 17th century.

Noun

discrimination (plural discriminations)

  1. a distinction; discernment, the act of discriminating, discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things.
  2. The state of being discriminated, distinguished from, or set apart.
  3. (sometimes discrimination against) distinct treatment of an individual or group to their disadvantage; treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality; prejudice; bigotry sexual or racial discrimination
  4. The quality of being discriminating, acute discernment, specifically in a learning situation; as to show great discrimination in the choice of means.
  5. That which discriminates; mark of distinction, a characteristic.

Now can I value a brain surgeon over a hockey player without looking down on the hockey player?

I do not have to use the third (3rd) definition to do that...correct?

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not have to use the third (3rd) definition to do that...correct?

The third definition is a package deal. Is it their disadvantage or it not being based on merit that is the essential characteristic?

Now can I value a brain surgeon over a hockey player without looking down on the hockey player?

The phrase "to look down on" implies an emotional attachment. Something like contempt. I didn't mean to imply such an emotion when I classified certain groups of natives as primitive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now