Tim Kaine Executed His Assignment: Get Sound Bites for New Hillary Campaign Ad

October 05, 2016

Writer

Leon Wolf, new Managing Editor for TheBlaze, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Wednesday for a post-VP debate analysis. Having watched Kaine for some time, Wolf said the Democratic vice presidential nominee didn't seem like himself, diplomatically calling him "grumpier" that usual and "very negative."

"He was a jerk," Glenn added, skipping the niceties.

More importantly, Wolf vocalized what he believed to be Kaine's primary objective during the debate --- and it wasn't to win.

RELATED: Did Kaine’s Debate Plan Include Being the Most Obnoxious Man on Earth?

"I think he was assigned a job going into the debate, right? It's not to win the debate because nobody cares who wins the VP debate. He was assigned the job to get commercial material to cut," Wolf proposed.

In fact, the day following the debate, the Clinton campaign released a new ad showing Pence making contradictory statements.

"So this is the ad that they just released and dumped online . . . you see Mike Pence just shaking his head and denying each one of those charges. And I think, Leon, that was his job, to get a good viral commercial out of it, period," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these soundbite-worthy questions:

• Was Tim Kaine playing a role?

• Who is winning the Bernie or bust people?

• Does Leon think Hillary or Trump will win?

• What does Jeffy do in cold, dark, lonely places?

• Are Republicans doomed?

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Leon Wolf is with us. He's joining us from RedState, where you helped build that thing along with Erick Erickson, for what? For the last 11 years in.

LEON: Eleven years.

GLENN: And he is now our editor and chief at TheBlaze. And we're excited to have you join us. What did you think of the debate last night?

LEON: Thank you, Glenn.

You know, it's interesting. I think a lot of people's impressions pretty much universally were -- that watched the debate -- were that Mike Pence won. I think he came off better during the course of the debate, just because Kaine -- and I've watched Tim Kaine for a long time -- didn't really seem like himself. He was much grumpier, seems like than he usually -- he was very negative.

GLENN: He was a jerk.

LEON: Yeah.

GLENN: He was a jerk. I mean, I've never seen him -- yeah, I've always heard that he was a nice guy and a gentle guy. You know, a quiet -- he was -- he was a jerk.

STU: He seems to be playing a character.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

STU: The same thing at the convention speech, which was weird, he was trying to be goofy and make all these jokes. And here, there was a lot of prepared lines. I don't know if that's just his role in the campaign or what. It's strange.

LEON: Well, I think -- yeah, I think he was assigned a job going into the debate. Right? It's not to win the debate. Because nobody cares who wins the VP debate. He was assigned the job -- was to get commercial material to cut. And that's what we talked about just before the show.

GLENN: So he walked in with a new commercial. And do we have this?

Hillary Clinton is the first on the air with a commercial from last night's debate. Listen. Here it says, Mike Pence realized he was running with Donald Trump last night.

TIM: Let's start with not praising Vladimir Putin as a great leader. Donald Trump and Mike Pence have said he's a great leader. And Donald Trump has --

MIKE: No, we haven't.

DONALD: Putin's been a very strong leader for Russia.

VOICE: Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in this country.

TIM: Donald Trump, on the other hand, didn't know that Russia had invaded the Crimea.

MIKE: Oh, that's nonsense.

DONALD: He's not going to go into Ukraine. You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it any way you want.

VOICE: Well, he's already there, isn't he?

VOICE: Donald Trump has said it?

TIM: A deportation force -- they want to go house to house, school to school, business to business, and kick out 16 million people. And I cannot believe --

MIKE: It's nonsense.

DONALD: You're going to have a deportation force.

MIKE: Donald Trump and I would never support legislation that would punish women.

VOICE: Should the woman be punished?

PAT: Oh, man.

DONALD: There should be some form of punishment.

TIM: More nations should get nuclear weapons. Try to defend that.

MIKE: Well, he never said that.

DONALD: Wouldn't you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons --

VOICE: Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?

DONALD: Saudi Arabia, absolutely.

TIM: Donald Trump said, keep them out if they're Muslim. Mike Pence put a program in place to --

DONALD: Total and complete shutdown of Muslims --

TIM: He is asking everybody to vote for somebody that he cannot defend.

GLENN: Okay. So this is the ad that they just released and dumped online, and it's much more effective with the visuals because you see Mike Pence just shaking his head and denying each one of those charges. And I think, Leon, that was his job is get a good viral commercial out of it, period.

LEON: Right. I mean, I think every year, the VP sideshow is much more insignificant than the presidential sideshow. But I think this year, it's doubly so.

Because I think the central question of this election is, can you see Donald Trump sitting behind the desk at the Oval Office after something like 9/11 happens? Is that something you can even possibly conceive of in your mind?

I think that's what the gut check America is being asked to do right now, is. And I think that Tim Kaine, for however he came off in the debate and probably didn't do himself any favors, I think his job was to drive that point home. And he may have scored some effective points along that line.

GLENN: I don't think he changed anybody's mind. I think he hardened people in their own -- I mean, if you were a Trump supporter, you had no problem with Pence saying, "He never said any of those things."

LEON: Well, that's what Pence has to say, right? Because he's a reasonable person. He can't say, "I agree with all the crazy things that Donald Trump has said." His only recourse is to say, "No, he never said those things."

I think that was his only possible --

GLENN: It's our job as human beings to say, "Yeah, Mike. Yes, he did."

LEON: Right.

GLENN: That's the hard thing. These politicians are putting us in a no-win situation because they're in a so-called no-win situation. So they're putting us in that no-win situation. Where we're having to go, hmm, well, he's lying, and he's lying.

I mean, this whole thing about -- I mean, you could make another commercial for Donald Trump where he's saying, you know, the Israelis loved this idea, this deal with Iran, and they've completely stopped.

No, they didn't. No, they didn't. And the Israelis don't love that idea. You know, you could make the same kind of commercial. They're both liars.

LEON: Yeah. In order to win the debate last night, Mike Pence had to prepare to lose the post debate fact-check. That was the position he was in.

GLENN: Yes.

LEON: That's probably the best-case scenario. I think he accomplished that.

GLENN: Yeah. I agree. You know, the blue tie said it all: He had to look stable. And like somebody you could go, I could see him -- as long as he's in the room with him, I would be okay with that.

STU: It's sort of a central thing that's been raised from this election too, is what do you want with people? People you interact with politically. People you interact with in the media. Do you want someone who is going to say that a candidate has lied even if you want that candidate to win? Do you want to go to someone and have a conversation and then they say, "Well, no, actually, let me give you a justification, or I will deny that he said those things," do you want that? Or do you want someone who is going to say, "Look, I want that guy to win, however, he's lying here." That --

GLENN: I want that.

STU: I want that. 100 percent, I want that. That is -- we may be in the minority on that particular point.

PAT: We may be? We absolutely are.

GLENN: We absolutely are.

PAT: We absolutely are.

GLENN: I think there's about 10 percent of the country that wants that.

PAT: They don't care. They don't care how much he lies. And neither do Hillary Clinton supporters.

STU: It's both sides, I think.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: Oh, it is.

STU: Do you think Democrats want to go turn on a media source and hear actually Donald Trump is way worse and Hillary Clinton is telling the truth about her emails, or do they want somebody saying, "Look, Donald Trump is crazy, but, you know what, Hillary Clinton is really bad on these emails. She's handling herself terribly and she's corrupt." I as a Democrat would love that.

GLENN: Right. And it's amazing because we for the last ten years have been saying, is there no one -- is there no one on the left who will say the emperor has no clothes? Is there not one honest journalist? One honest person who says, look, I'm part -- I'm not going to vote for your side, but our side is despicable here.

The answer has been no. No. We've gotten a few journalists who are at least asking some tough questions during the Obama administration, but not really. Not really taking them to task.

There hasn't been anybody on that side. And yet, when you find them -- you worked with Erick Erickson.

STU: Right.

GLENN: RedState's pretty Never Trump. I mean, Erick is taking a bludgeoning for it. A bludgeoning for it.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Our side at least has had a few stand up and go, "I can't play this game. I want my side to win. I think my side is right, but not on this. Because they're lying."

LEON: Yeah, you know, I definitely haven't seen -- and we were told that this was going to be the year that we have all the Bernie or bust people, right? They were like, we're going to stand by these principles, and we'll go vote for, you know, Jill Stein or whoever it is.

I think those people have much more assimilated into the Hillary Clinton machine than a lot of the Never Trump people have --

GLENN: It's interesting.

LEON: Despite what the media would have you believe. Because a lot of them say, well, this movement is dead. It's totally insignificant. And it's not true. A lot of the polls that you show -- that you see, show that one of the fundamental differences in this race is that Hillary Clinton is pulling over 90 percent of registered Democrats, which you would expect. But Donald Trump is pulling between 80 and 85 registered Republicans, and that's a major difference.

GLENN: Yeah. I saw in North Carolina because she is pulling -- she's pulling every black. She's pulling every black in North Carolina. And he is pulling, what? 60 percent, or somewhere in that area of whites.

He's -- they say, it's -- unless he picks up eight points of whites or eight points of blacks or eight points of Hispanics or a little of each, he's not going to make it. That's the analysis I saw last night.

LEON: And he's -- I saw the New York Times -- Sienna did a poll a couple weeks ago. Mitt Romney kind of eked out North Carolina because he won Mecklenburg County and suburban Charlotte white voters by over 21 points. And Hillary Clinton is running even with those voters, with the suburban, kind of wealthy Charlotte area voters.

GLENN: Wow.

LEON: They want nothing to do with Trump. And I live in a very wealthy county myself in Tennessee. And back in 2012, I saw Romney/Ryan signs everywhere. I see maybe two in my entire area --

GLENN: Okay. So but what -- how much -- Jeffy and I were having this conversation earlier today.

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: How many people are actually secretly for Trump?

JEFFY: In the cold, dark, lonely place of that voting booth. When it comes down to --

LEON: Right.

GLENN: You know what, I'll never tell a friend that I did it, but I'm voting for Trump because I can't take her.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: They'll never put a sign up, but they can vote for him.

LEON: Oh, I have no doubt, he'll win Tennessee, he'll win my county. But the enthusiasm is definitely way down between kind of your core Republican voters, you know.

GLENN: How do you see this? You see her winning or him winning at this point if it was held today?

LEON: I see her winning.

GLENN: You see her winning?

LEON: I see her winning probably by more than what the polls are predicting.

GLENN: And anything that could happen that would change that?

LEON: I think it's difficult. So all the polls basically work on assumptions, right? It's supposedly science. But it's basically an assumption by every pollster on what the electorate will look like. And one of the things that I don't think anybody knows is to what extent kind of Trump's rhetoric about Hispanics is going to affect the makeup of the electorate.

Whites and blacks in this country vote at a rate of 62-63 percent. Hispanics who are legally vote at a rate of about 51 percent. So they are drastic undervoters in this country.

GLENN: Yeah.

LEON: If -- so even though they represent -- Hispanics who are here legally represent about 17 percent of the United States population right now. They tend to pull in nine to 11 percent of the electorate. If they actually become 17 percent of the electorate, this could be a ten or 11-point whitewashing by Hillary Clinton that nobody --

GLENN: I will tell you this, if that turns out like that, the Republicans are doomed from here on out. Because that is the election that has made them Democrat for the rest of their -- for the rest of their life. The rest of their life.

Featured Image: Screenshot from Hillary's new, post-VP debate campaign ad.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.