Bradley Manning says United States is ‘obsessed with killing’

“I felt I accomplished something that would allow me to have a clear conscience.”

By DANIEL HALPER | WEEKLY STANDARD | MARCH 1, 2013

Bradley Manning pleaded guilty today to leaking classified material. “Army Pfc. Bradley Edward Manning pleaded guilty Thursday to 10 charges that he illegally acquired and transferred U.S. government secrets, agreeing to serve 20 years in prison for leaking classified material to WikiLeaks that described U.S. military and diplomatic efforts in IraqAfghanistan and around the globe,” reports the Los Angeles Times.

… He also admitted that he leaked confidential file assessments of detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and five classified records from a U.S. bombing in the Farah Province of Afghanistan, which killed up to 30 civilians.

In all, the 5-1/2-year veteran once assigned to Operation Station Hammer near Baghdad in Iraq pleaded guilty to 10 counts, each drawing two years in prison.

Manning, however, pleaded not guilty to the more serious charges. “The 25-year-old soldier, however, pleaded not guilty to 12 more serious charges, including  espionage for aiding the enemy, meaning that his criminal case will go forward at a general court-martial in June. If convicted at trial, he risks a sentence of life in prison at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.”

Though he ultimately gave the documents to WikiLeaks, he tried first to send them to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Politico.

Bradley Manning has revealed to his court-martial at Fort Meade, Maryland, that he tried to leak US state secrets to the Washington PostNew York Times and Politico before he turned in frustration to the new anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks,” reports the Guardian.

National Rifle Association promises to raise hell against Obama’s anti-Second Amendment proposal

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JANUARY 17, 2013

The powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) began on Wednesday its own crusade against the initiative announced and signed by the President of the United States to toughen laws on firearms. In a letter delivered to attendees of the largest arms fair in the world, which will run until Friday in Las Vegas, the NRA announced “the fight of the century” against Obama and his plan to limit and control the purchase and possession of firearms.

“I warned you that this day was coming and it has,” wrote NRA Vice president Wayne LaPierre to more than four million members. “It is not about protecting your children. It has nothing to do with curbing crime. It’s about banning your firearms. PERIOD! “LaPierre wrote in the letter.

While Obama appealed to common sense and trust of citizens in their desire to change the prospect of more massacres occurring, the NRA exercised its most extreme muscle and put the blame on the current administration, which he accused of having lied about its intention to maintain an “open debate”.

That was a dirty lie,” LaPierre wrote. “They did not listen to the concerns of gun owners. They didn’t considered any real solution on how to keep our children safe, “continued the vice president in the letter.
“By contrast, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and his friends opposed to guns in Congress want to blame, denigrate, harass and strip you of your rights under the Second Amendment [which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms]” , ended LaPierre.

On Tuesday night, in anticipation of the presidential message that launched a series of executive orders to ban assault weapons, limit the magazines to 10 bullets and establish a system of background checks for those who purchase firearms, the NRA began its counteroffensive against the White House with a video in which he called the president an “elitist hypocrite” for opposing the presence of armed guards in schools while his two daughters are protected by the Secret Service. The reaction of the White House was quick, calling the video “cowardly” and “disgusting”.

After the massacre in Newtown school a month ago, the U.S. public is more positive about the need to tighten gun control. According to the survey released Monday by the Pew Center, 85% of respondents agree that it should be harder to sell firearms. A similar result was obtained from a joint survey conducted by the  Washington Post and ABC, in which nine of 10 respondents agreed to strengthen control of gun purchases.

The NRA says that since the White House announced measures to prevent the repetition of massacres like that of Sandy Hook, the size of its membership has increased by 250,000 people. The NRA has currently more than four million members. His influence on Capitol Hill, where Congressmen may or may not approve the measures announced by Obama, is significant because of the economic contributions given by the NRA to the election campaigns of many of them.

According to a study cited by the Washington Post, of the 435 members of the new House of Representatives, 205 (47%) received financial support from the NRA in the last legislature. Of the 100 senators who currently sit in the upper house, 42 accepted contributions from that organization in the same period. In total, 88% of Republicans and 11% of Democrats who are part of the 113th Congress have received donations from the NRA.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

A Tottering Technocracy

Here and in Europe, the financial meltdown exposes the hollowness of our elites.

by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review
August 9, 2011

We are witnessing a widespread crisis of faith in our progressive guardians of the last 30 years. These are the blue-chip, university-certified elite, employed by universities, government, and big-money private foundations and financial-services companies. The best recent examples are sorts like Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Larry Summers, Peter Orszag, Robert Rubin, Steven Chu, and Timothy Geithner. Politicians like John Kerry, John Edwards, and Al Gore all share certain common characteristics of this Western technocracy: proper legal or academic credentials, ample service in elected or appointed government office, unabashed progressive politics, and a free pass to enjoy ample personal wealth without any perceived contradiction with their loud share-the-wealth egalitarian politics.

The house of a John Kerry, the plane of an Al Gore, or, in the European case, the suits of a Dominique Strauss-Kahn are no different from those of the CEOs and entrepreneurs who were as privately courted as they were publicly chastised. These elites were mostly immune from charges of hypocrisy or character flaws, by virtue of their background and their well-meaning liberalism.

The financial meltdown here and in Europe revealed symptoms of the technocracy’s waning. On this side of the Atlantic, Geithner, Orszag, Summers, Austan Goolsbee, Paul Krugman, and Christina Romer apparently assumed that some academic cachet, an award bestowed by like kind, or a long-ago-granted degree should give them credibility to advocate what the tire-store owner, family dentist, or apple farmer knew from hard experience simply could not be done — borrow or print money on the theory that insular experts, without much experience in the world beyond the academy or the New York–Washington financial and government corridor, could best direct it to productive purposes.

But now they have either left government or are no longer much listened to — and some less-well-certified accountant will be left with the task of finding ways to pay back $16 trillion. Abroad, at some point, German clerks and mechanics are going to have to work a year or two past retirement age to pay for those in Greece or Italy who chose to stop working a decade before retirement age — despite all the sophisticated technocratic babble that such arithmetic is reductive and simplistic.

In the devolution from global warming to climate change to climate chaos — and who knows what comes next? — a small group of self-assured professors, politicians, and well-compensated lobbyists hawked unproven theories as fact — as if they were clerics from the Dark Ages who felt their robes exempted them from needing to read or think about their religious texts. Finally, even Ivy League and Oxbridge degrees and peer-reviewed journal articles could not mask the cooked research, the fraudulent grants, and the Elmer Gantry–like proselytizing about everything from tree rings and polar-bear populations to glaciers and the Sierra snowpack. A minor though iconic figure was the truther and community activist Van Jones, the president’s “green czar,” who lacked a record of academic excellence, scientific expertise, or sober and judicious study, assuming instead that a prestigious diploma and government title, a certain edgy and glib disdain for the masses, and media acclaim could permit him to gain lucre and influence by promoting as fact the still unproven.

Higher education is no longer affordable for many families, and does not guarantee well-rounded, well-educated graduates. A university debt bubble, in Fannie and Freddie fashion — together with the rise of no-frills private online certificate-granting institutions — is undermining traditional higher education. The symptoms are unmistakable: tuition spiraling far ahead of inflation; elite faculty excused from teaching to publish esoteric articles in little-read journals; legions of poorly compensated part-time instructors and graduate-student assistants subsidizing the privileged class; political orthodoxy as an unspoken requisite for membership in the club. An administrator is deemed successful largely for promoting “diversity” — rarely on the basis of whether costs stabilized, graduation rates increased, the need for remediation declined, or post-graduation jobs were assured on his watch. This warped system, which grew out of the bountiful 1960s, is now a vestigial organ, an odd-looking thing without an easily definable purpose. When will the bubble burst? If the four-year university cannot ensure its graduates that they will necessarily have a better-paying job and know more than the products of an upfront credentialing factory, why incur the $200,000 cost and put up with the political indoctrination?

Kindred media elites in Europe and the United States lauded supposed technocratic expertise without much calibration of achievement. Indeed, to examine the elite media is to unravel the incestuous nature of power marriages and past loyal service to heads of state. Those who praised Obama as a god or attributed their own nervous tics to his omnipresence or reported on his brilliant policies often either had been speechwriters to past liberal presidents, enjoyed family connections, or were married to other New York or Washington journalists or powerbrokers. Their preferences about where to send a kid to school, where to vacation, and what to think were as similar to those they reported on as they were foreign to those who were supposed to listen to them. Like wealthy people in the Middle Ages who bought indulgences instead of truly repenting their sins, the more our elites preached about egalitarian politics for the fly-over upper middle classes, the less badly they felt about their own mannered conniving for privilege and status.

A generation ago, we were supposed to be grateful that a few gifted and disinterested minds were digesting our news for us each day on cash-rich ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and PBS, and in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, summarized periodically on weekend network discussion groups and in newsweeklies like Time and Newsweek. Now the market share of all these enterprises is shrinking. Some exist only because of government subsidy, rich parent companies, or like-minded wealthy benefactors.

The technocratic pronouncements from on high — that Barack Obama was “sort of GOD,” or at least “the smartest president in history”; that a Harvard-trained public-policy wonk alone knew how to save us from a roasting planet — are now seen by most as laughable. An education-age Reformation is brewing every bit as earth-shattering as its 16th-century religious counterpart.

There are also generic signs of the technocracy’s morbidity. It deeply distrusts democracy, most recently evidenced by John Kerry’s rant that the media should not even cover the Tea Party, and by the European Union’s terror of allowing the public to vote on its intricate financial bandaging. It is no accident that technocratic journalists love autocratic China — with its ability to promote mass transit or solar panels at the veritable barrel of a gun — while hating the Tea Party, which came to legislative power through the ballot box.

So the elites’ furor grows at those who seek and obtain power, exposure, and influence without the proper background, credentials, or attitude. How else to explain why a Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin earns outright hatred, whereas a Mitt Romney or John McCain received only partisan disdain?

There is an embarrassing lack of talent and imagination in the last generation of the technocrats. One banal memo about a “tea-party downgrade” or a “jihadist” takeover of the Republican party is mimicked by dozens of politicians and journalists who cannot think of any more creative phraseology. Calls for civility are the natural accompaniment to unimaginative slurring of those outside the accustomed circle. When Steven Chu exhorts us that gas prices should match European levels or assures us that California farms will blow away, should we laugh or cry? Do learned attorneys general call the nation “cowards,” refer to fellow minority members as “my people,” or really believe that they can try the self-confessed terrorist architect of 9/11 in a civilian court a few yards from the scene of his mass murder? Was Timothy Geithner really indispensable in 2009 because other technocrats swore he was?

We are living in one of the most unstable — and exciting — periods in recent memory, as much of the received wisdom of the last 30 years is being turned upside down. In large part the present reset age arises because our political and cultural leaders exercised influence that by any rational standard they had never earned.

The George Soros’ Media

By Dan Gainor
Fox News
May 12, 2011

When liberal investor George Soros gave $1.8 million to National Public Radio , it became part of the firestorm of controversy that jeopardized NPR’s federal funding. But that gift only hints at the widespread influence the controversial billionaire has on the mainstream media. Soros, who spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004, has ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets – including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC.

Prominent journalists like ABC’s Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethical code stating: “avoid all conflicts real or perceived.”

This information is part of an upcoming report by the Media Research Centers Business & Media Institute which has been looking into George Soros and his influence on the media.

The investigative reporting start-up ProPublica is a prime example. ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure” – “progressive” being the code word for very liberal. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is www.soros.org. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts.

The ProPublica stories are thoroughly researched by top-notch staffers who used to work at some of the biggest news outlets in the nation. But the topics are almost laughably left-wing. The site’s proud list of  “Our Investigations” includes attacks on oil companies, gas companies, the health care industry, for-profit schools and more. More than 100 stories on the latest lefty cause: opposition to drilling for natural gas by hydraulic fracking. Another 100 on the evils of the foreclosure industry.

Throw in a couple investigations making the military look bad and another about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and you have almost the perfect journalism fantasy – a huge budget, lots of major media partners and a liberal agenda unconstrained by advertising.

One more thing: a 14-person Journalism Advisory Board, stacked with CNN’s David Gergen and representatives from top newspapers, a former publisher of The Wall Street Journal and the editor-in-chief of Simon & Schuster. Several are working journalists, including:

• Jill Abramson, a managing editor of The New York Times;

• Kerry Smith, the senior vice president for editorial quality of ABC News;

• Cynthia A. Tucker, the editor of the editorial page of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

ProPublica is far from the only Soros-funded organization that is stacked with members of the supposedly neutral press.

The Center for Public Integrity is another great example. Its board of directors is filled with working journalists like Amanpour from ABC, right along side blatant liberal media types like Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post and now AOL.

Like ProPublica, the CPI board is a veritable Who’s Who of journalism and top media organizations, including:

Christiane Amanpour – Anchor of ABC’s Sunday morning political affairs program, “This Week with Christiane Amanpour.” A reliable lefty, she has called tax cuts “giveaways,” the Tea Partyextreme,” and Obama “very Reaganesque.

• Paula Madison – Executive vice president and chief diversity officer for NBC Universal, who leads NBC Universal’s corporate diversity initiatives, spanning all broadcast television, cable, digital, and film properties.

• Matt Thompson – Editorial product manager at National Public Radio and an adjunct faculty member at the prominent Poynter Institute.

Once again, like ProPublica, the center’s investigations are mostly liberal – attacks on the coal industry, payday loans and conservatives like Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. The Center for Public Integrity is also more open about its politics, including a detailed investigation into conservative funders David and Charles Koch and their “web of influence.”According to the center’s own 990 tax forms, the Open Society Institute gave it $651,650 in 2009 alone.

The well-known Center for Investigative Reporting follows the same template – important journalists on the board and a liberal editorial agenda. Both the board of directors and the advisory board contain journalists from major news outlets. The board features:

• Phil Bronstein (President), San Francisco Chronicle;

• David Boardman, The Seattle Times;

• Len Downie, former Executive Editor of the Washington Post, now VP;

• George Osterkamp, CBS News producer.

Readers of the site are greeted with numerous stories on climate change, illegal immigration and the evils of big companies. It counts among its media partners The Washington Post, Salon, CNN and ABC News. CIR received close to $1 million from Open Society from 2003 to 2008.

Why does it all matter? Journalists, we are constantly told, are neutral in their reporting. In almost the same breath, many bemoan the influence of money in politics. It is a maxim of both the left and many in the media that conservatives are bought and paid for by business interests. Yet where are the concerns about where their money comes from?

Fred Brown, who recently revised the book “Journalism Ethics: A Casebook of Professional Conduct for News Media,” argues journalists need to be “transparent” about their connections and “be up front about your relationship” with those who fund you.

Unfortunately, that rarely happens. While the nonprofits list who sits on their boards, the news outlets they work for make little or no effort to connect those dots. Amanpour’s biography page, for instance, talks about her lengthy career, her time at CNN and her many awards. It makes no mention of her affiliation with the Center for Public Integrity.

If journalists were more up front, they would have to admit numerous uncomfortable connections with groups that push a liberal agenda, many of them funded by the stridently liberal George Soros. So don’t expect that transparency any time soon.

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on FaceBook and Twitter as dangainor.

Estados Unidos Sí negocia con Terroristas y Narcos

Por Luis R. Miranda

¿Ha escuchado usted los rumores de que los EE.UU. son el principal comerciante de drogas en todo el mundo? ¿Qué tal el rumor que cuenta cómo el ex jefe de New York Stock Exchange se fue a Colombia para pedir a los narcos que invirtieran en la Bolsa de Nueva York? Que rumores, ¿verdad? Nope. Hay pruebas suficientes para saber que, efectivamente, los Estados Unidos no sólo es el mayor operador y co-productor de drogas del mundo. También existen pruebas suficientes de que Richard Grasso, ex jefe de la Bolsa de Nueva York viajó a Colombia para reunirse con jefes del narcotráfico local para ofrecer que intercambiaran sus drogas por dinero para alimentar el mercado financiero.

En la actualidad, los Estados Unidos vigila y ayuda en el cultivo de cocaína en Afganistán,-según lo informado por Fox News y Gerald

El Ejército Norteamericano vigila sigilosamente los campos cultivados en Afganistán.

o Rivera. Hay por supuesto una buena explicación para la doble moral. Si los EE.UU. no ayuda al hermano del presidente Karzai para ganarse la vida de la venta de drogas, entonces los terroristas lo harían y usarían el dinero para atacar al “mundo libre”. Casualmente, esto es exactamente lo que ocurre en Colombia. Como informó el Washington Post, el hermano del presidente colombiano, Santiago Uribe, era el jefe de un escuadrón de la muerte en la parte norte del país, que operaba desde una finca que perteneció a la familia Uribe. Santiago, también conocido por sus vínculos con cárteles de la droga, asesinaba delincuentes menores, simpatizantes de la guerrilla y sospechosos de subversión.

Pero las negociaciones con los narcos no se limita a Colombia o Afganistán. La “gloriosa” guerra contra las drogas llega a los más altos mandatarios de la actual administración Obama. El asesor de Obama, George Soros es un hombre de negocios conocido por su intención de querer legalizar todas las drogas. Como parte de la guerra contra las drogas, Colombia entregó parte de un territorio montañoso a las FARC, un grupo paramilitar que estaba entonces supuestamente siendo desmantelado como parte del proceso de negociación para poner fin al comercio de la guerra.

Richard Grasso abraza al jefe de las FARC, Raul Reyes en 1999.

Como el documental American Drug Waro Guerra Contra Las Drogas en America expone, los EE.UU. tiene una larga historia de traficar drogas en todos los continentes, especialmente de América del Sur al Norte, y más recientemente de Asia a América. Desde que el presidente Nixon legalizó el tráfico de drogas por el gobierno de los EE.UU. a través del establecimiento de la guerra contra las drogas, el negocio de la trata y el transporte de drogas ha crecido de manera exponencial y el resultado ha sido el blanqueo de miles de millones de dólares por los bancos de Wall Street, que se utilizan para financiar operaciones secretas ilegales en todo el mundo. Estas operaciones se llevan a cabo para capturar países que no colaboran, o sea, no se rinden ante los banqueros; y son llevadas a cabo con guerrillas y contratistas militares de operaciones especiales.

El ex detective de Narcóticos de la Policía de Los Ángeles, Mike Ruppert, envió ondas de choque alrededor de los Estados Unidos cuando le dijo al director de la CIA John Deutch y una sala llena de reporteros, que la organización había encabezado el trafico de drogas por mucho tiempo. Amadeus, Pegaso y Atalaya son los nombres de tres operaciones que la CIA utilizó para comercializar drogas en todo Estados Unidos. Él mismo había sido reclutado para ayudar a proteger las operaciones de la agencia. Ruppert desafió a Deutch a investigar las operaciones secretas de y decir la verdad al público.

Catherine Austin Fitts-, ex Secretaria Asistente de Vivienda-Comisionado Federal de Vivienda en la primera Administración Bush, describe la visita de Grasso a Colombia:

Supongo que el viaje de Grasso no tuvo éxito en cambiar el curso del flujo de caja. Por lo tanto, el Plan Colombia se introdujo para mantener un buen ritmo para tratar de mover los depósitos narco fuera del control de las FARC y de nuevo al control de nuestros aliados tradicionales y, si esto no funciona, se aumenta la cuota de mercado de Citibank y la de los otros bancos de EE.UU. en América Latina.

En su ensayo Narco Dólares, Fitts expone cómo funciona el trasiego de dinero en el comercio de drogas ilícitas. Según Fitts, el poder de Narco Dólares viene cuando se combina el tráfico de drogas con el Mercado de Valores. Señala que las drogas no son siempre un bien, pero a veces se convierten en una moneda. Cuando la industria militar vende armas a un grupo terrorista, por ejemplo, se puede o no pagar en dólares. Cuando el papel moneda es escaso, existe la opción de pagar con las drogas. Es por eso que la CIA lleva drogas a los EE.UU. como pago por la venta secreta de armas a Colombia y otros gobiernos títeres en América Latina.

Todos recordamos el escándalo Irán-Contra. El corazón del escándalo es el hecho de que Oliver North y la Casa Blanca (Consejo Nacional de Seguridad) comercializó drogas a través de Mena, Arkansas para facilitar envíos de armas. Mena fue por supuesto un gran contribuyente a Bill y Hillary Clinton en varias campañas a nivel local regional y nacional.Otros ejemplos en los que las drogas se usaron para el comercio de armas son los conflictos en Vietnam, Kosovo, México, y así sucesivamente. En todos estos casos, las drogas, el petróleo, el gas y las armas son las monedas utilizadas para el intercambio. “Si se añade el oro, una moneda y la cuota de mercado de los bancos y usted tiene mi lista para entender cómo el dinero funciona en cualquier guerra o” conflicto de baja intensidad “en todo el mundo”, dice Fitts.

Todos recordamos el escándalo Irán-Contra. El corazón del escándalo es el hecho de que Oliver North y la Casa Blanca (Consejo Nacional de Seguridad) comercializó drogas a través de Mena, Arkansas para facilitar envíos de armas. Mena fue por supuesto un gran contribuyente a Bill y Hillary Clinton en varias campañas a nivel local regional y nacional.Otros ejemplos en los que las drogas se usaron para el comercio de armas son los conflictos en Vietnam, Kosovo, México, y así sucesivamente. En todos estos casos, las drogas, el petróleo, el gas y las armas son las monedas utilizadas para el intercambio. “Si se añade el oro, una moneda y la cuota de mercado de los bancos y usted tiene mi lista para entender cómo el dinero funciona en cualquier guerra o” conflicto de baja intensidad “en todo el mundo”, dice Fitts.

En el otro lado de la moneda tenemos los Bush. George H.W. Bush fue director de la CIA y presidente de Estados Unidos. Sus hijos Jeb y

Junto con los Clintons, la familia Bush es una de las más corruptas en la historia Estadounidense.

George W. fueron los gobernadores de dos de los mayores mercados de drogas en los Estados Unidos: Texas y Florida. Los otros dos estados son Nueva York y California. Más tarde, George W. Bush se convirtió en presidente de los Estados Unidos. ¿Puede ser una coincidencia que los hijos de un ex jefe de la mafia ocuparon exitosamente esas funciones durante uno de los períodos de tráfico de drogas más intenso en la historia del país?

¿Por qué las personas que usaro drogas son enviadas a la cárcel, entonces? Bueno, el narcotráfico es un negocio redondo. Las mismas corporaciones que se benefician del tráfico de drogas también se benefician del sistema penitenciario. Tomemos por ejemplo la CCA, o Corrections Corporation of America. En su página web auto califican su trabajo como un servicio para construir y administrar las cárceles. “Nuestro enfoque de asociación público-privada en las prisiones combina el ahorro de costes y la innovación de las empresas con las estrictas directrices y la supervisión constante del gobierno.” De los más de 2 millones de personas en prisión en los Estados Unidos, más del 80 por ciento están en la cárcel por fumar, vender o comprar marihuana, por ejemplo. El negocio del tráfico de drogas, simplemente recoge los beneficios de todos los puntos posibles. Desde la plantación, hasta la cosecha, el transporte, la venta y el encarcelamiento de quienes las usan. Por supuesto, no es suficiente que la gente sea enviada a la cárcel. Mientras están ahí, estos infractores también son obligados a trabajar en los campos de esclavos con el fin de multiplicar los beneficios que obtiene el complejo industrial de prisiones. ¿Es esto un monopolio criminal o no?