‘Is there anyone else in the media who will join me?’ Glenn reacts to Nancy Pelosi’s bold break of protocol

During a debate on the House floor on Friday, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was so unnerved by the commentary of fellow Congressman Tom Marino (R-PA), she got up out of her seat and ran through the aisles of the chamber toward Marino. Marino was speaking about the immigration crisis and the role the Obama Administration’s policies have played in facilitating the lawlessness at the border.

Watch the video of Marino and Pelosi below:

On radio this morning, Glenn explained the danger this moment represents. After recounting the beating of Senator Charles Sumner at the onset of the Civil War, Glenn challenged his colleagues in the media to consider the role they may have played in today’s divisiveness and what we can all do to move in a more respectful direction.

Below is an edited transcript of the monologue:

I want to talk to you a little bit about the state of our society. Left and right, we all want to belong to something bigger than ourselves. At the end of our life, we want to be able to look back and say, ‘Our kids live in a better world than we lived in because we did the hard thing.’ If you’ve ever gone through anything, you've ever been broken, you've ever faced a real serious challenge, you will say, ‘Give this to me. Let me take this on so my kids don't have to deal with it.’

But we have become a society that we no longer see our kids' future as real. We've bought into the lie that you can have everything that we can afford, that you deserve everything, that your kids don't really need you, that there's such a thing as quality time over just time. And I don't think any of that stuff is true, I really don't. And as a guy who has lived my life counting on quality time, I think it's a lie.

I watched the families that are great, and I've watched my kids now. My daughter is 8-years-old and my son who is 9, and I realize they are about to be 30. And where will that time have gone? I will have missed it yet again. And it matters. There are certain things that are true, and when we get to the end of our life, we will really only worry about our family and what did we do. I talked to a guy who was in a plane crash yesterday. He was in a plane crash and broke his back, couldn't get out, jet fuel was all over in this plane and spilling out on the ground, and he could hear the ignition of the engines. He thought, ‘Oh dear God, this thing is going to go up in a ball of fire.’ And nobody else was awake at the time. He had to get out. There were only three people on this plane. And the other two were relatively uninjured. He broke his back and thought that his legs were pinned in the plane. But when he really came conscious enough to realize and look down at his legs, he realized, ‘They're not pinned. There's nothing wrong with you.’ He's just sitting in his seat with nothing on his legs. He can't feel his legs. He unstrapped himself from the plane. He falls down into the center aisle. And he drags himself to the door just thinking his legs just aren't work for some reason. And he gets to the door and he tries to stand up and get himself up and there's no power to his legs at all.

A farmer had seen his plane go down, and it landed in a field. The farmer was on his tractor and drives out. This farmer and one of the pilots drag his body about 50 yards away from this plane and then he's in the hospital for almost a year. He couldn't walk. He's walking again. But it has been an unbelievable year of being broken. And he said, ‘Glenn, everything that they say about your life flashing in front of you, really happens.’ He said, ‘It's an amazing thing. You see things.’ He said, ‘Not once did I think about work. Not one scene was about my boss. Not one scene was about the quarterly profits. Nothing. It was all about my children. All about the things that I had done or didn't do in life.’

We're all like this. In the end, whether we admit it or not, we're all like this. We all believe that man should be free. Even the communists, even the fascists, convinced themselves that they're freeing people. ‘You'll be free if you live under Sharia Law because you're free to worship God the way you should worship God.’ So they even believe in freedom in a totally mixed-up, upside down world. We all believe that. And we all want to leave the world a better place for our children. We have to find a way to unite. We have to find a way to where we can live in a world where we disagree with each other.

Now, there are some things that we disagree on so much. For instance, Hamas. The Palestinians are not Nazis. But you can compare Hamas to Nazis quite easily but not the Palestinian people any more than you can say every German was a Nazi. That's not true. 30% of Germans voted for the Nazis. In the end, because they were all so afraid, some just bought into the propaganda. I mean their children were turning them in. In the end, I don't know what the percentage was, but we went over to fight the German people. But once we defeated the Nazis, we were not against the German people. The same thing with Hamas and Gaza. We're not against the people who live in Gaza. We're not against the Palestinians. We're against Hamas. We're against people who say, ‘Genocide is the way to go.’

So we have to find a way where we can talk to each other, where we can listen to one another, where we can have control of our own lives, and that we belong to something bigger than ourselves, something that means something in the end. I have been really concerned over the last 10, 15 years about what's happening in our world and in our country, and I have made some pretty bold predictions and stood alone on them. In 2007, 2006, I was talking about an economic collapse that was coming. It happened in 2008 because of TARP.

We're in the final bubble now called the ‘money bubble,’ and I predicted that in – what, 2007 – that we would bail everybody out and there would be a money bubble. And that's what USA Today had talked about last week in one of their op-eds: The money bubble.

We talked about the Caliphate. We talked about the rise of Nazis again in Europe and the old hatreds of the world. We talked about anti-Semitism on the rise. We talked about something that just made it in the newspapers last week, and this one came from Argentina. They're now blaming the United States for their inflation, and they're blaming the United States for their collapse. We talked about that four years ago. I'm really bad at timing. I don't know when these things happen. It's not that I can see the future. I know enough of history and I haven't been taught and trained by a guild.

There are certain things in history that happen and cycles repeat themselves. First, I looked for revolution around the world and I looked to the French Revolution and the American Revolution. I looked at what happened in Germany in the 1850s, in France, in the 1870s, in Russia in the teens, Cuba, Germany, China, all over the world. It's the same story, same pattern. But as we started to really fight with one another is when I first started to have this, ‘Oh-oh, wait a minute. We're in trouble internally. We are starting to hate each other.’ I started to look at the Civil War. And I told you a few years ago, it made me feel better when I did that because there was one thing that happened that we were so far away from. We had extra time.

But a soft version of it happened last Friday. If you remember, last week we were talking about Ted Cruz. They were talking about procedure. And the Democrats were very upset because of their procedure. And we were talking on the air about the Constitution. You got to care about the Constitution. Who cares about your little procedural rules? But that's a very big deal. And that's what made it in the papers, that Ted Cruz was a monster because he broke procedure when it came to the immigration debate. And what he did is he went over to the House, and he talked to the House members and said, ‘What are you doing?’ That was the crime of the century and it was in all of the newspapers about how bad Ted Cruz was.

But this was another procedure that was broken last week.

That's Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) running across the House floor ranting and raving about what Congressman Tom Marino (R-PA) is saying and he has the floor. She never asked for the floor. She just comes over and she starts wagging her finger in this face.

I don't believe that we are at this moment, but we took a giant leap toward this moment. I've been worried about an actual Civil War. And I do believe that we are a nation that is either at or near a ‘cold Civil War,’ where, thank goodness, nobody is firing shots at one another. But if you read the comment sections on the Huffington Post or TheBlaze, you hear the same stuff from left and right. Now, thank goodness it is only 5% of the population that is like that. But the vitriol is getting worse. And we can't engage in any of that. We have to strengthen our ties to people who we disagree with so we know each other, so we know that we're good people, that we don't wish them harm. We disagree, but we don't wish anybody harm. We stand shoulder to shoulder against those who would like chaos because there are those that would like the country to spiral into chaos. And whether they're communist or white supremacist, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the 80 or 90% of this country stays together – even though we disagree.

There came a time in the 1850s, and we've told you about this because, as I said, we were so far away from this. There same a time in the 1850s where both sides, the Whigs and the Democrats, both side were talking about slavery. They've been talking about slavery from the beginning of the country, and they were talking about getting rid of it. But they weren't going to do anything about it. And finally, this new party, this Republican Party started. They were like, ‘You guys are just playing games. Neither of you guys mean anything.’ The weaker of the two parties was the Whigs. The Republicans got out and they were the ones that were talking honestly about slavery, and they called it by name. They said, ‘You know, the people in the South, I don't care which party you're in, you're in bed with the horror of slavery.’ That's when somebody from the House broke all protocol, came across, and beat a guy within an inch of his life there in the well of the Senate.

Now, Nancy Pelosi clearly did not do that. But you saw the anger rise up in her so much that she broke protocol. Remember, just earlier this week, we heard how much protocol means. You don't have Ted Cruz break protocol and go over and talk to people in the House. This wasn't talking to people in the House. This is Nancy Pelosi enraged by what was said, running over and sticking her finger and then calling him inconsequential, calling him all kinds of names even after the incident. This is clearly not the beat-down of Charles Sumner.

But I warn you: This is an important event that Americans should see. And it has nothing to do with politics. If you agree with the Republican or you agree with Nancy Pelosi, it doesn't matter. This is an important moment that people need to see. When we dehumanize on the House floor, when they start being enraged and moving in that rage, we're in trouble. We're in very, very big trouble.

The good news is: There's still time. And there's time for all of us stop concentrating on ‘Glenn Beck said he was sorry.’ Is anyone else willing to say, ‘You know what? I did some things I'm not really proud of.’ ‘You know what? I've got to change my ways as well.’ Is there anyone else in the media who will join me? You don't have to agree with me. But is there anyone in the media who says, ‘Enough is enough’? We've got to stop worrying about the ratings. We have to stop worrying about the money. We have to start worrying about the things we're all going to worry about when we're on our death bed: What did we do?

Let's start to move towards a better future, one where we can at least talk with each other with respect.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why do Americans feel so empty?

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.