← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno

The Doctor Is In(sane)

Thread ID: 19413 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2005-08-04

Wayback Archive

il ragno [OP]

2005-08-04 02:27 | User Profile

Who here remembers Jamie Glazov? [I]Rednecks don't celebrate Mothers' Day[/I], and [I]above all else, the Arab fears the vagina[/I]?

Ah, my. Those were the days....when all ya hadda do to make neocons look like raving bloodthirsty idiots was to post a Glazov column the moment it bobbed to the surface in Horowitz's septic tank. Alas, the word got out about Jamie and his boomerangingly risible rhetoric, and it wasn't long before they yanked him as a columnist and tried to limit the damage he might do by converting him into FRONT PAGE's official interviewer. I'm happy to say that they tried to limit the damage he might do [I]unsuccessfully[/I]: Dr G asks some of the most droolingly insane questions in the biz. Even when he's interviewing someone halfway credible, you can't read one of Glazov's hysterically alarmist or bellicose queries without giggling. Wah-[I]lah[/I]:

[QUOTE][url]http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18986[/url]

FP: Joseph Farah, welcome to Frontpage Interview. It is a pleasure to have you here.

Farah: Thank you, Jamie.

FP: In one of your recent G-2 bulletins, you discuss the evidence suggesting that Osama is planning what he calls an "American Hiroshima" and that he already has the means to do it. [B]Al Qaeda has apparently already smuggled nuclear weapons into the U.S. This is simply terrifying. Can you tell us a bit about this?[/B]

Farah: Several reporters and top intelligence analysts -- people including me, Yossef Bodansky, the former terrorism guru to the U.S. Congress, Paul Williams, author of the upcoming book, "The Al Qaeda Connection," and others -- have been working quietly and independently for years on this issue of al-Qaida's acquisition and plans for nuclear weapons. What's happening is that this independent work has led to surprisingly similar conclusions -- that al-Qaida has nuclear weapons, probably many of them, and that some of them, according to a variety of sources, have already been smuggled into this country using our porous borders and with the help of criminal enterprises like the MS-13 gang.

There is no question, based on captured documents and captured al-Qaida leaders that Osama bin Laden has been planning his "American Hiroshima" for many years -- long before Sept. 11, 2001. When you hear U.S. officials -- from President Bush, to Vice President Dick Cheney, to the head of the FBI and Homeland Security all telling us about the "inevitability" of a terrorist attack on the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction, this is what they are talking about. They haven't come right out and made the announcements about what they know is the threat because they have determined it might create a panic. We're not reporting anything the White House doesn't know. We're not reporting anything the CIA doesn't know. We're not reporting anything the FBI doesn't know. We're just reporting what the American people don't know. And since the government is doing next to nothing to protect the American people, it seems appropriate to let them in on the dirty little secret.

There is a major threat to the U.S. civilian population from al-Qaida's existing nuclear arsenal -- and, based on the evidence, I believe some of that arsenal has already been delivered to this country.

FP: What are Al Qaeda's prime targets? Why?

Farah: Again, according to captured documents and captured al-Qaida leaders -- and some defectors -- the plans are to detonate multiple nuclear weapons in major U.S. cities -- either all at once or over a period of days. You can guess most of the prime targets -- New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. The only surprise, according to my sources, is that al-Qaida's list is not based on the cities with the most population. The list is based on where most American Jews live. So you see some cities like Miami and Las Vegas and San Francisco on the list. Dates are very important to al-Qaida, as we have come to know, and one of the dates mentioned in connection with this "American Hiroshima" plan is Aug. 6, the anniversary of the U.S. nuclear attack on Hiroshima in 1945. No year has been set, but it is worth noting that this Aug. 6th is the 60th anniversary of that attack.

FP: If Al Qaeda really perpetrated this horror, what would be the result?

Farah: Thre's an old joke that goes: "One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day." Even one nuclear detonation in a major U.S. city, of course, would mean not only the deaths of potentially millions, but it would wreak havoc on the U.S. economy -- which is a always a goal with bin Laden. He doesn't want to just kill Americans. He wants to defeat the USA. He wants to bring us to our knees. And he wants to give all the glory to Allah.

FP: Could you expand a bit on the sources for this information? How do we know they are reliable?

Farah: Personally, I have been working on this project for nearly four years. This story has not come together all at once. It has come together piecemeal over that period of time. I have had what I consider to be credible sourcing on 95 percent of this for quite awhile. I withheld it from publication because I couldn't even believe it myself. I didn't and don't want it to be true. I have no desire to be right about this. I want very badly to be wrong. This is not a story that can advance my reputation, credibility, career or business interests. If I'm wrong, which I hope I am, people may some day laugh at me. I will gratefully accept that. If I'm right, nobody is going to be saying, "Gee, that Farah told it like it was." They will be focused on the national disaster that has struck us -- just as I will be. About 90 percent of the information I have gathered on this plan is from publicly sourced documents available to you and anyone else who wants to spend the time looking for them. It's only the analysis and interpretation that requires skilled -- and sometimes unnamed -- intelligence sources.

FP: Tell us a bit about Al Qaeda’s cooperation with the Russians on this matter.

Farah: I don't know of any official cooperation with the Russian government. But al-Qaida has purchased the services of former KGB officers and former Spetznaz special forces troops with knowledge of maintaining and detonating the nuclear weapons it has obtained from the former Soviet Union. In addition, Russia is playing a very dangerous game in continuing to conceal the whereabouts of nuclear weapons planted on U.S. soil during the Cold War. Al-Qaida is furiously looking for these weapons with the help of those Russian agents it has procured for a price. If Russia wanted to save the world from this potential holocaust, it could contribute by telling the U.S. government where the nukes are buried -- before al-Qaida finds them. There is a very strong likelihood that if a nuclear weapon is detonated in the U.S., it will be a Russian nuclear weapon.

FP: [B]Russia had already smuggled nuclear weapons into this country? How come they didn’t set them off? Because of mutually assured destruction? Because communism crumbled in Russia and the Cold War came to an end? How come the Russians haven’t disclosed their location? Because they still see us as potential enemies and are saving the nukes for a rainy day? [/B]

Farah: I believe the simple doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction did keep an uneasy peace between the USA and Soviet Union for a generation. But today Russia needs to tell the U.S. where those nukes are buried. It is an ongoing act of war to conceal these weapons of mass destruction in our country. Too many defectors have confirmed their presence on our soil. We need explanations from the Russians. To date they have even tried to deny they ever made suitcase nukes. President Bush needs to use his relationship with Vladimir Putin to get to the truth before it is too late. How would we respond as a nation to a nuclear terrorist attack in our country knowing the weapons used against us originated in Russia? Would Russia not be accountable in any way?

At least one high-ranking Russian KGB agent said indeed that some in his country still believe war between our countries is "inevitable" so the weapons must remain concealed. That is, to say the least, unacceptable.

FP: How did we get here? Could this have been prevented?

Farah: Since the reports indicate the nuclear devices came across the Mexican border -- along with thousands of sleeper al-Qaida agents -- it seems apparent to me that we have left our back door wide open. We have used our military to project force around the world, but we have not secured the perimeter. If there is a major terrorist act in this country again -- something equivalent to 9-11 or worse, President Bush will have no one to blame but himself. No longer will we be able to look back at the failings of the Clinton administration over eight years -- and there were many -- that led to Sept. 11. Bush has been in power now for five years. It was his decision not to secure the borders.

FP: Why wouldn’t the Bush administration secure our borders? What are the advantages of leaving them unsecured? Is it too politically incorrect to secure them?

Farah: I've asked this question myself over and over. It is the most frequently asked question I hear from my radio audience and from the thousands of emails I receive from readers. President Bush candidly said it was a matter of cheap labor a few months ago. I believe that is dead wrong. I don't believe there is anything cheap about this labor. It is bankrupting our health-care system. It is taking jobs away from law-abiding American citizens. It is raising crime rates and it is threatening our national security.

No, I believe there is another more sinister reason. There is a master plan for global governance being plotted in meetings of groups like the Council on Foreign Relations. You can read its reports. And, I believe this open-borders policy is a direct result of those plans, which have been secretly adopted by our highest leaders, including President Bush.

FP: [B]This scenario and information is all truly horrifying. Is there anything you can tell us that would give us grounds for optimism? Is there any hope? [/B] What can be done to prevent an American Hiroshima from transpiring, for by the evidence you present, it seems inevitable.

Farah: Pray very hard.

FP: I hear you Mr. Farah. [B]I would never dismiss prayer – for gizzillions of reasons. But apart from prayer, my friend, what can we do? [/B] This seems so hopeless because I want to suggest that we announce that mutually assured destruction will come into effect immediately if we are hit, but then. . . .who the hell do we target in a revenge attack? We can’t blow up a city of the enemy because there is no city of the enemy and as a civilized democracy we simply can’t do anything of this nature. Or can we? Must we make some kind of barbarian threats that might deter these terrorists? I can’t see how because, unlike the communists, they aren’t even interested in self-preservation anyway. They want to die. This is truly depressing. Do you have any suggestions besides the counsel to pray?

Farah: Raising awareness of the problem certainly gives the American people the option of making their own contigency plans. I know people like Buffett are. I know the federal government is. Why shouldn't the American people be made starkly aware of the impending threat?

FP: As you are aware, Dr. Jack Wheeler has argued that this whole thing – the Al Qaeda plan “American Hiroshima”etc. – is a hoax. He says it is total nonsense that Soviet suitcase nukes are here in the U.S., that there were no cell phones in 1988 (to trigger them), etc. I must admit his argument that Osama would never use a nuclear bomb even if he had one because we have thousands to strike back is not quite convincing. We have no one to strike back in this terror war (in terms of a country) and Osama and his ilk aren’t particularly afraid of death. Aside from this, can you deal a bit with his dismissing of the claims?

Farah: I love Jack, but the cell phone is 30 years old. I had a cell phone in 1988. Jack's memory is a little faulty here. All one really needs to do is listen to people like President Bush, Dick Cheney, Warren Buffett and others who say not only is it possible, it is "inevitable" that nuclear terrorism will happen.

FP: Well, before we go, let me try this one more time and in a different way: suppose we all become starkly aware of the impending threat. Besides praying, is there anything we can actually do about it? [B]Please give us some hope. [/B]

Farah: I don't use the term "inevitable." As a Christian, I don't like that term. But that's what Bush, Cheney, Ridge and many other public officials have said. I would like us, as a nation, as a people, to try to prevent it. Maybe it's that feeling of inevitability that has our public officials paralyzed. At the very least, we can minimize the impact of a future attack by denying the terrorists easy continued entry into this country by closing the borders. We should demand of our Russian friends that they come clean -- privately would be OK -- about the buried nukes in the U.S. We should get serious about the threat from within this country posed by terrorists operating within the confines of mosques and charities. We should stop discriminating against Arab Jews at the FBI, in military intelligence and in law enforcement in this country. They are fluent in the language and culture of our enemies and that would be of immense help to our national security. We must get on a war footing and enlist the help of the American people in combating this enemy. There are many things we can do -- even though the hour is late.

FP: [B]Can you tell us a bit about the discrimination against Arab Jews at the FBI and other law enforcement agencies in this country? Why would this be happening? It makes absolutely no sense.[/B] Why do we like hiring enemies instead of friends?

Farah: We have many documented reports of Arab-American FBI translators who speak approvingly of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida being retained and relied on for sensitive intelligence-collecting positions. At the same time we have documented reports of Arab Jews -- people who fled for their lives from Iraq, Syria and other Arab countries being systematically denied those same translating positions. Why? Apparently because they might have loyalty to Israel! It is blatant anti-Semitism being demonstrated by the U.S. government. Not only is it a self-destructive and counter-intuitive operation, it is blatantly illegal. But it continues still.

Just think how many Arab Jews there are in this country who know the language and know the culture. Why aren't we tapping that resource? Some 750,000 Jews were expelled from the Arab countries in the last 50 years. Not all of them went to Israel. Many of them live right here in the U.S.

FP: Mr. Farah, it was a pleasure to have you here with us today. [B]Thank you for coming to share this vital and traumatizing information. We won’t blame the messenger. [/B] Take care my friend.

Farah: Thank you, Jamie. God bless you -- and God bless us all. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][url]http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19002[/url]

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Jack Cashill, an Emmy-award winning independent writer and producer with a Ph.D. in American Studies from Purdue. He is the author of the new book Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture.

FP: Mr Cashill, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Cashill: Glad to be here.

FP: What inspired you to write this book?

Cashill: I was living in Ireland in 1993. One afternoon I was listening to their national radio, a huge and influential station, and they were interviewing Philip Nobile. Nobile had just written a devastating expose of Alex Haley's Roots for the Village Voice. As Nobile explained, Haley had plagiarized huge chunks of this non-fiction Pulitzer-prize winning work from a white novelist. Worse, when genealogists tried to walk in the footsteps of Kunta Kinte, they discovered that they did not lead anywhere. In short, Kunta Kinte was a fiction. This story was the talk of the British Isles. The BBC did a follow-up documentary. When I returned to the US, I mentioned to some friends, "How about this Alex Haley thing?" They stared at me blankly. "What Alex Haley thing?" Only then did I realize the depth of the problem.

FP: And so crystallize it for us, why wasn’t the Alex Haley “thing” an issue in American culture?

Cashill: Haley's fabrication of the Roots story was not an issue in American culture only because the great majority of Americans never learned it was a fabrication. The cultural gatekeepers did not think the American people should have this information. In its gratuitous anti-American and anti-Christian bias, Roots proved much too useful to the multicultural agenda. As a point of contrast, the gatekeepers were much more outraged by the utterly inconsequential Milli Vanilli lip-synching fraud.

FP: Give us a few words about what you discovered about Ward Churchill, Rigoberta Menchu, Margaret Sanger and Alfred Kinsley.

Cashill: I discovered that serious intellectual fraud is a collaborative process. In Sanger's case, the cultural establishment has conspired to suppress her full-throated support for a brand of eugenics that makes the Nazis look weak at the knees. Her writings are kept alive only by her opponents. In Kinsey's case, just as his child torture experiments were becoming well-known, Hollywood circled the wagon with the hagiography, "Kinsey." The Nobel Prize committee refuses to take back Menchu's Prize even after it learns that her autobiography was falsified from beginning to end, and it served no purpose but to prolong a useless civil war. Churchill's case shows just how intellectually bankrupt is the American university. He was promoted to department chair after his "Little Eichmanns" screed. And even after many of his writings have proved as false as his Indian identity, his colleagues continue to rally around him.

FP: Can you tell us a bit about Kinsey’s child torture experiments?

Cashill: There is no evidence that Kinsey himself was a pedophile as his defenders are at pains to point out. There is no denying, however, that he encouraged pedophiles to perform sexual experiments on children as young as two months and instructed them in the kind of data he wanted. His breakthrough book, The Sexual History of the Human Male, openly charts the experiments on at least 600 boys. Kinsey also knowingly skewed the statistics he gathered to make his own homosexuality and masochism seem more normative.

FP: [B]And this guy is venerated by the Left? [/B] Are there any leftists that have come out and condemned Kinsey for this sexual abuse of young boys? [B]Can you tell us a bit about his masochism? I remember reading that this guy put metal wires up his urethra. What was wrong with him do you think? [/B]

Kinsey: Oddly enough, Kinsey was an anti-communist Republican, the one Republican in the last century that the Left has embraced and, not coincidentally, the only one I know who routinely stuck hairbrushes (yikes!) up his penis. He was a sick pup. He likely had some father issues. There is no criticism of Kinsey from the Left. None. The Left has, however, savaged Kinsey's critics like Judith Reisman. Since she is of Jewish descent, the Left has had to denounce her as "a tool of the Christian right."

FP: [B]Out of everyone you studied, who would you say was/is the most wretched human being? [/B] Why?

Cashill: The winner here is Walter Duranty, the New York Times reporter who knowingly concealed the Stalin terror-famine that left some seven million of his fellow citizens dead. Duranty did not even have the excuse of sincerity. He had gotten mixed up in the "Paris Workings," a fashionable series of black masses on the eve of World War I, and lost whatever faith he had. From that point on, he did as he pleased. Appropriately, his book about this era is titled, "I write as I please." He still has his Pulitzer for his Moscow reporting and is still honored in the Times' Hall of Heroes, a reality that appalled even Jayson Blair.

FP: [B]Tell us about the black masses Duranty was involved in. [/B] And why do you think the Times is so shameless in keeping Duranty on its Pulitzer list? Somehow [B]I suspect that if a reporter intentionally covered up what happened at Abu Ghraib under American supervision the Times' disposition toward the reporter would be quite different. (And I am by no means equating the mass murder of 30 million people with a thong being put on someone's head)[/B].

Cashill: The motto of the "Paris Workings" was "semen et sanguis" which should tell you just about everything you need to know about this homoerotic boys club. It is likely that Duranty made the connections there that got him his job at The Times. It would be interesting to see what other luminaries engaged in these black masses. Duranty appalled even the duplicitous cub reporter Jayson Blair. Blair first encountered Duranty when he toured the New York Times during an internship. He found Duranty's gold-framed photo in the Times' hallowed hall of Pulitzer winners on the eleventh floor. All that distinguished Duranty from his fellow honorees was an asterisk beneath his picture and a disclaimer: "Other writers in the Times and elsewhere have discredited this coverage." (Discredited?) The disclaimer was in small type. The headlines would be reserved for Blair. The Times can not bear an admission of this magnitude. Then they would also have to acknowledge Herbert Matthews, who appalled Blair as well. Matthews was the one who convinced the world that Castro was a liberal Democrat bringing a "new deal" to Cuba.

FP: [B]In terms of all of this denial practised by the Left, it is obviously a given that members of the Political Faith are not interested in the truth. You can tell them all about the dysfunctional, pathological and evil ingredients of the lives of individuals they consider icons, and they won't care. You can tell them all about the bloodshed caused because of the earthly incarnation of their ideas - Stalin's, Mao's, Pol Pot's, Hanoi's, Castro's killing fields etc. They aren't interested. What exactly are they interested in?[/B]

Cashill: Great question. What interests the champions of all the major progressive strains-the radical naturalists, the Marxists, the multiculturalists, and the sexual hedonists - is the destruction of traditional Judaeo-Christian culture. This is the tie that binds. Traditionalists are all that stand in the way of their creating their own heavens on earth. "In a world without God," said Sartre (paraphrasing Dostoevsky), "anything is permitted." That "anything" includes deceit and dishonesty, weapons that the traditionalists are inclined to deny themselves. There are, after all, no "Mumias" on the right, never have been.

FP: Explain the “Mumias” reference to those of our readers who might not get it.

Cashill: Mumia Abu Jamal shot and killed a Philadelphia police officer in front of four eyewitnesses and was apprehended two minutes later with the literal smoking gun at his feet. The Democrat prosecutor claimed often and publicly that "he never had a stronger murder case." To no one's surprise, a mixed-race jury convicted Mumia of murder and sentenced him to death. But Mumia's career was just about ready to shift into high gear. Mumia, you see, was not your average prisoner on death row. The one-time journalist was well spoken, well versed in Marxist claptrap, and, above all, cute. That last item was critical. He emerged as the human equivalent of a baby seal, big-eyed and vulnerable. The Left made him its mascot. Soon enough he was the author or subject of ten books, the star of a thousand protests, and the voice of his own commentary on NPR.

FP: [B]Today leftists like Michael Moore and Tom Hayden represent the Left perfectly in cheering for the Islamist enemy in this terror war. The Left is supposed to be for gay rights, women rights and minority rights, and yet it has come out on the side of the most fascistic, gay-hating, women-hating and minority hating forces on the face of the earth. This is some kind of mass pathology, no?[/B]

Cashill: As they say in old Arabia, my enemy's enemy is my friend. As Theo Van Gogh learned the hard way, however, these people don't make friends very easily.

FP: I think that it is much more than just the enemy of my enemy is my friend. [B]The Left is intimately attracted to the nihilist death-cult that serves as the buffer to Islamist totalitarianism, and it is for that very reason that the Durantys and Jean Paul Sartres so adored the communist killing fields. The Left and Islamism both share the sacred common ground of the thirst for mass death and suicide. But this is a discussion for another time and place my friend.[/B]

So have you checked out David Horowitz's DiscovertheNetworks.org? What do you think of it? Expand on your views about where the Left stands in this terror war in general and on Iraq in particular.

Cashill: I think you describe the hard core Left accurately. The soft core, the great majority, just need to be lied to, and are they ever!

DiscovertheNetworks is a great source for those interested in the interlocking connections between groups. To understand Kerry's oddball anti-war campaign one has to understand its provenance on the hard Left. This conscious anti-Americanism dates back to Stalin's consolidation of power in 1925. A realist, Stalin knew that an American revolution was unlikely so he focused his energy on discrediting the idea of America in the world. He worked through the Comintern, the Communist International, a worldwide propaganda network. The Comintern's first major effort in this regard was the Sacco-Vanzetti case. This set the pattern for all the "innocents" to come down the pike on through Mumia. For the record, they were all guilty. The pattern of reflexive anti-Americanism became so ingrained in the Left that it outlasted the Soviet Union and led to the absurdly nihilistic "unholy alliance" that David Horowitz talks about.

FP: What is your perspective on what is happening on the College campus? The Left has been suffocating free thought and expression in academia for a long time. Do you have some thoughts on the Academic Bill of Rights?

Cashill: The one thing that has saved America from its universities is the fact that students don't pay much attention to their teachers. I think that the Academic Bill of Rights is a highly useful vehicle to end the monopoly. I wrote Hoodwinked to be accessible to students, a handy reference guide for the next time they are asked to study Margaret Mead or Kinsey or Edward Said or Rigoberta Menchu or Rachel Carson or Lillian Hellman. Well applied, Hoodwinked can be the liberal professor's nightmare.

FP: What do you make of Jane Fonda and the recent news that she is planning more anti-war theatrics, this time in the context of Iraq?

Cashill: No one can discredit the anti-war movement quicker or better than Jane Fonda. Let her roar.

FP: From all your research into the Left, how would you describe the psychology of the leftist?

Cashill: I think Whittaker Chambers said it best. For him the difference between the "Communist" on the one hand and "those miscellaneous socialists, liberals, follow travelers, unclassified progressives, and men of good will" on the other was one of commitment, not one of vision. The vision they all shared was of a man-centered world, one in which God was either dead or irrelevant. Somewhere during their childhoods, someone told them they were smarter than God, and they bought it.

FP: So overall, how are we going to break down these gates that the cultural gate keepers guard? How can we get rid of these guards? Do you think a change is already in effect? What forces do you think are doing a great job in destroying these totalitarian boundaries of debate that the Left has built and guarded for so long?

Cashill: We have one powerful new tool, the Internet. Lying is much harder to get away with than it used to be. Using the History-Net, the H-Net, an obscure grad student in California, Clayton Cramer, brought down Michael Bellesiles who had won the Bancroft Prize for his sham attack on the gun culture, Arming America. When Cramer finished with him, Emory University had to fire Bellesiles and Columbia University took back the Bancroft Prize. It can happen.

FP: [B]Mr. Cashill, you have written a powerful and engaging piece of work. It is a vital contribution to our cultural and literary landscape. [/B] Thank you for being here today.

Cashill: Thanks for the opportunity and keep up the great work.[/QUOTE]

weisbrot

2005-08-04 03:10 | User Profile

There I was, trying to get a mood on for Soylent Green on TurnerSouth- and this has to pop up. So much for musings on our future apocalyptic overpopulated snack-i-balism, you made me laugh right through Heston's brooding reference to Edward G. Robinson as a "schmuck".

BTW, how close is SG's 2022 (Population: 40MM- SAAAH-LUTE!!) to present-day Manhattan?

il ragno

2005-08-04 03:35 | User Profile

BTW, how close is SG's 2022 to present-day Manhattan?

During the Puerto Rican Day parade, an exact match.

Sertorius

2005-08-04 10:14 | User Profile

IR,

That first interview was insane and it just wasn't Glazov. Farah comes off as a lunatic at least, and a fearmonger at worst.

il ragno

2005-08-04 12:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE]That first interview was insane..... [/QUOTE]

...for gizzillions of reasons.

Sertorius

2005-08-06 10:08 | User Profile

IR,

I'm still alive, are you? Of course, we still have 18 hours to go.

CWRWinger

2005-08-06 11:04 | User Profile

"Oddly enough, Kinsey was an anti-communist Republican,......."