Apr 30, 2007

This Parrot's Letter to the United States Senate

The following is being e-mailed to each and every Senator of the United States of America.

SUBJECT: What Would Winston Do?

My Dear United States Senators,

Given my unique perspective on the matter, I feel it is incumbent upon me to share with you my thoughts regarding Senator Orrin Hatch’s evocation of Sir Winston Churchill on the Senate floor this past 26th of April. Judging by the vote on H.R. 1591 that same day, a clear 51 of you missed his point entirely; hence the urgency of my correspondence.

For more than a quarter of the 20th century, I served as Prime Minister Churchill’s proud and loyal pet parrot. You can read all about it here and here. (While there have been numerous counter-reports aimed at discrediting my lineage, please pay no attention. Bloody lies.) Today, through that miracle of modern technology known as THE BLOG, I endeavor to reintroduce Sir Winston’s words, spirit, and perspective in order to shed sorely needed Churchillian Light upon the events of our time. You will find this letter and numerous other of my essays, articles, and links at http://www.churchillsparrot.com/.

Thus, was I greatly heartened by Senator Hatch’s comments on the Conference Report to H.R. 1591. Thus too was I greatly disheartened by the fact that the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 51 to 47. Fortunately, as Bushie is sure to veto this debacle, there is still time to reiterate some of Senator Hatch’s more brilliant observations in regards to the need for commitment, resolve, and comprehensive thinking on the part of the American people and their representatives, assuming you all wish to actually prevail in this latest test of history.

“Today I rise to speak on a question that continues to weigh heavily on my heart. I am reluctant to ask it since such a question would never have been asked, or even contemplated, by previous generations of Americans. But it is a question that now must be asked since it is central to our future: do we, as Americans, have the resolve to see our commitments through?

It is the central and critical component in determining who will prevail in the Global War on Terrorism. Will we, our coalition allies, the people of Iraq and their elected government, emerge victorious? Or will we renounce and abdicate our commitments and responsibilities to the Iraqi people -- leaving them to a fate controlled by terrorists and leaving our future security as a Nation in peril. Generations ago that, unto itself, would be a stain on the honor of this country; but these are different times

I am reminded of events that occurred during the summer of 1940. The Nazi armies, seemingly invincible, had conquered Western Europe. France, the Netherlands, Poland, Denmark, Norway, and Belgium had all fallen. The British Army, after its rescue from Dunkirk, no longer possessed sufficient numbers of artillery and tanks to defend against the blitzkrieg. All that stood between Hitler and complete victory was the English Channel and 650 fighters of the Royal Air Force. Then Hitler offered a deal. In exchange for a “free hand in Europe,” the Nazis would provide “guarantees” that they would not invade Great Britain. Despite the fact that the British Army lacked sufficient equipment to effectively repulse an invasion, Prime Minister Churchill resolved to keep his Nation’s commitment to the people of Europe. He would not abandon them.

His words, which I will paraphrase, still echo today:

’The Battle of France is over… the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of… Western civilization… The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us… or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free… But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States…[and] all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us, therefore, brace ourselves to our duties and so bear ourselves that…, men will say – This Was Their Finest Hour.’

This is the lesson that history teaches us -- that resolution to see your commitments through is what great statesman and Nations are made of. That peace and justice can only be restored through bold action. So what do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle offer, knowing full well this lesson of history? In a word: Defeat.

I believe Winston Churchill would have characterized the Democratic strategy as -- guaranteed defeat. Is this resolve? Is this determination to see our commitments through? No, this is the worst case of capitulation to appeasement since Neville Chamberlain spoke the words “Peace in our Time.” What is needed now is leadership. Now at this critical moment in history, great nations need to follow Churchill’s advice, yet the Democrats only offer us Chamberlains.

What side of history do you wish to be on? Based on America’s history and our resolve that has seen us through so many difficulties in the past, I believe the American people do not want retreat they want success and security.

-Orrin Hatch, United States Senator for Utah

HERE, HERE Senator Hatch! Though I undoubtedly could have, I shall do you the honor of claiming I could not have said it better myself.

My dear Senators, I sincerely hope that each and every one of you will - on this and ALL matters concerning the fate of Western Civilization at this particular and peculiar juncture in human history - reconsider the words of Senator Hatch and Sir Winston. Please know that my continuing counsel on such matters is at your disposal 24 hours a day at http://www.churchillsparrot.com/.

For alas, much is at stake and much remains left to be done before we can heed Mr. Chamberlain’s advice to, “Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.”



Apr 27, 2007

The Tale of Two Harrys

Two Harrys. One a dashing young Prince able and willing to risk life, limb, and fortune to defend his Kingdom and what it once stood for. The other a corrupt, two-faced, defeatist bureaucrat.

To which will our enlightened, post-modern, “been there done that”, “Oh What-Ever!” society lend its support? If latest polls are to be believed – chancey gamble that – Harry the Corrupt Two-Faced Defeatist Bureaucrat gets the nod.

Meanwhile our dashing young Prince is likely to be coddled, pampered, and hidden away against his will by nanny’s in uniform desperately trying to avoid a Sheehan/Tillman vintage PR fiasco should the slightest harm befall young Harry.

“No one wants to gift a PR victory to the insurgents by withdrawing him,” a source told The Sun. “But there is a groundswell of opinion across senior ranks now that to allow Harry to serve in the open with his men will lead to an inevitable disaster.”

One might ask, oughtn’t the decision be up to the young man whose life it is to do with as he pleases? But alas, yet another “groundswell of opinion” threatens to drag us one step further from duty, honor, and self-sacrifice; and one step closer to indecision, inaction, and cowardice.

Once upon a time, young men like Prince Harry where the stuff of legend and song, hailed throughout the land to emboldened a citizenry in peril. But these – perhaps more than we realize - are very different times indeed.



Apr 23, 2007

Transcript of My Interview with Vice President Richard Cheney

Churchill’s Parrot: Vice President Cheney, it’s an honor and a privilege.

Vice President Cheney: The honor and a privilege are all mine, Charlie.

CP: Yes, of course.

VP: Heh, heh, Well Charlie, I don’t have to tell you, the Churchillian spirit is sadly lacking in a near 50% of the American population. And … well let’s not even talk about England.

CP: Thank you.

VP: Your work here Charlie – placing current events in the context of history and evoking the spirit and words of Sir Winston - helps greatly in our efforts to make people fully aware of the real threat we face and the heroism of those facing it.

CP: I should like that you give Bushie a right good dose of the Churchillian spirit. His seems to be waning a bit of late.

VP: Well he does his best. It’s not like he’s getting any help from the media or anybody else.

CP: Precisely why he should stop with the new-tone-nice-guy bit and have at it. He’s becoming his own father. Dreadful.

VP: Well you’ve got a point there. George H.W. Bush was a gentleman to the point of political suicide. George W. is tending in the same direction. But in order to really lay out what’s going on he’d have to trash Clinton for wanking-off on foreign policy for eight years and detail some of the blunders of his own father’s administration. It’s just not in him.

CP: You were a part of that first Bush administration.

VP: Yes I was. And with the gift of hindsight, I’ve seen the errors we made – should have finished off Saddam, maybe went too far with the military cuts - and often told myself, if I had a second chance, I’d do some things differently. Well I’ve got that second chance now. And this time, I’m kind of the Administration’s crazy old Grandpa who’s too old to care what people think about him anymore and says whatever he feels like. They just send me out when it’s time to tell it like it is and I say what needs to be said. Everybody hates me. Do I care? Hell I’m not running for re-election, every day my heart’s still beating is a gift from God and medical technology, I’m worth millions, got a hot wife … what the hell do I care?

CP: And now it’s the DNC’s Lovable Elfin Donkey-Boy who’s gunning for you, eh?

VP: Stephanopoulos?

CP: No, Kucinich.

VP: Oh yeah, yeah (chuckles). Funny little fella isn’t he? We have a name for him around the White House; we call him, “Dennis the Menace.”

CP: That’s most humorous, Mr. Vice President.

VP: Please, Charlie, call me Dick.

CP: I’m afraid I can’t do that. Are you concerned at all about this effort to have you impeached?

VP: No.

CP: Would you care to elaborate on that at all, Mr. Vice President?

VP: Sure. It’s a joke. He’s a joke. The people supporting him and this effort are jokers, and even if they had an iota of a case – which they do not – I’d be long out of office by the time they got around to actually doing anything about it anyway.

CP: Very well then. In his remarkably substance-free letter, the DNC’s Lovable Elfin Donkey-Boy writes “This week I intend to introduce Articles of Impeachment with respect to the conduct of Vice President Cheney.” To what conduct do you believe he is referring?

VP: Iraq.

CP: Again, Mr. Vice President, a bit more elaboration might be conducive to the interview process at present.

VP: Well this guy’s at the leading edge of the “Iraqnophobia” infecting the Left.

CP: Is that another one you bandy about the White House?

VP: “Iraqnophobia?” No I picked that up from some blog somewhere. Anyway, I mean this guy’s even going after Hillary, Barrack, and John Boy Edwards on this. And right now he’s in a position to do far more damage to them then he could ever do to me. I mean, talk about a Weapon of Mass Destruction, did you see what he did to Cleveland?

CP: I’m afraid I don’t exactly follow his logic. What does Iraq have to do with your “conduct?”

VP: Well of course he believes we made the whole thing up and thus wrongly led the country into war. And I’ll give the little fella credit, he’s one of the few liberals in office who has at least been consistent in his rhetoric. He refuted every paragraph of the resolution to authorize the war back in 2002, effectively writing the script for the Left’s anti-war street theater we’ve been enduring for past five years. I invite everyone to read his “in-depth analysis” and ask, would you by a geodesic dome from this moon-bat?

CP: We’ll get back to some of the “reasoning” Donkey-Boy exhibits in his analysis in a moment, but I must ask, why go after you – the Vice President – when it is the President who was and is responsible for all decisions to go to war?

VP: Well first of all Charlie, he’s a liberal and as you know liberals share a profound lack of understanding of the United States’ Constitution, the principles and ideals upon which the Nation was founded, and how our government works. But they do know politics. Politically the only rationale I can put to it is that I’m an easier hit then the President. Besides who else is left? Hell they’ve already taken out or are in the process of taking out every man woman and child in or in support of the Bush Administration: Scooter, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Gonzales, Rove-ever-after, Trent Lott... Victor Davis Hanson had a great piece on all this the other day.

CP: All payback for Iraq concludes Mr. Hanson?

VP: No question about it.

CP: So you didn’t just make the whole Iraq thing up?

VP: No.

CP: Once again sir I must ask that…

VP: Oh sorry. Elaborate. Got it. First thing about that argument Charlie that has never been answered by the liberals is - why would we make it all up and start a war we didn’t feel was necessary for the security of the United States and her interests?

CP: I believe the party line is, “to further enrich yourselves and your cronies in the oil business.”

VP: Right. First of all, did you see my tax return? I don’t WANT any more income thank you! Secondly, that is about the deepest insult you can possibly level at men in the positions the President and I currently hold. If you are going to say such things, you damn well better have a lot of rock hard evidence to back it up. They have nothing, but say this kind of rot every day and no one challenges them on it. And yet I get in trouble when I say that The Speaker is being “irresponsible” for taking U.S. foreign policy into her own hands.

CP: Splendid. This brings us very tidily back to Donkey-Boy’s resolution refutation. As far as evidence of your being the most evil creature to ever lurk the planet, I believe the Lefties would cite, “Oil prices going through the roof.” “There were no weapons of mass destruction.” “There were no connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq.” “There was no connection between Iraq and 9-11.”

VP: Great. Let’s take those one at a time, shall we? Oil prices. Oil prices have fluctuated massively on the international market for as long as there has been an international market for oil. With the present ascendance of China, India, and parts of Africa, that market is expanding rapidly. Demand is outpacing supply. Prices go up. Add to that the crackpot antics of Ahmadinejad in Iran and Chavez in Venezuela making the market nervous, and prices go up further. This is middle school level economics – something else liberals know nothing about.

If the President and I were –as the liberals portray us to be - evil conniving money-crazed miscreants who think nothing of putting hundreds of thousands of lives in harms way just so we could add a few million to our bank accounts; there are a number of far easier ways for us to go about doing so. Drilling our own untapped oil for starters. The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates there are 102 billion barrels of oil and 635 trillion cubic feet of gas beneath U.S. federal lands and coastal waters. Geologists estimate another 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 50 billion barrels of oil are waiting, yet to be discovered, off the lower 48 states. The American Petroleum Institute notes that this is enough oil to replace current imports from the Persian Gulf for 59 years.

Does anyone seriously believe we would go through all the crap we are as politicians or even as villainous businessmen, if all we really had to do to get more oil was knock off the EPA and a few tree huggers?

CP: Next, “There are no Weapons of Mass Destruction?

VP: Charlie, less then a year ago a declassified summary of a report from the National Ground Intelligence Center reported that since 2003, Coalition forces in Iraq had recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

On October 2, 2003 U.S. personnel discovered a vial of live C botulinum Okra B hidden in the home of an Iraqi biological weapons researcher. According to former weapons inspector David Kay a biological agent can be produced from these materials.

In January 2004, according to a New York Sun editorial published that June 1, a 7-pound block of cyanide salt popped up in Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s Baghdad safe house.

On May 2, 2004, U.S. forces in Iraq found a mustard-gas shell, rigged as an Improvised Explosive Device. Perhaps one of the 550 mustard-gas projectiles Hussein failed to account for under U.N. Resolutions?

On May 15, 2004 The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing three to four liters of sarin nerve agent had been found and reworked as an IED. Two soldiers exposed to the device displayed ‘classic’ symptoms of sarin exposure, most notably dilated pupils and nausea.

On June 24, 2004 weapons sleuth Charles Duelfer told Fox News: “We found, you know, 10 or 12 sarin and mustard rounds.”
On July 6, 2004 the U.S. Department of Energy announced that a joint effort with the Pentagon removed 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium from Iraq that could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program. Those 3,894 pounds of uranium by the way were in powdered form, which is easily dispersed, ideal for a radioactive dirty bomb.

On November 3, 2006 the New York Times inadvertently reported that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had a nuclear weapons program.

There is considerable evidence that there was, in fact, an Iraq-Niger yellowcake nexus, despite Joe Wilson’s best attempts to muddle his own original testimony and the findings of British Intelligence.

And there remain voluminous supplies of WMD catalogued by U.N. inspectors throughout the 1990’s which no one seems to be able to find at present. So instead of playing games and pointing fingers, we all ought to be screaming, “WHERE ARE THEY!” Remember, in terms of chemical or biological weapons, just a small portion is enough to kill hundreds, perhaps thousands of people. Don’t tell me there are no weapons of mass destruction!

CP: Excellent. Moving on down the list Lefty diatribes, “There was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.” A fire you stoked recently on the Rush Limbaugh program.

VP: Yeah and the reaction has been great hasn’t it? Here we have another case of incessant and loud denial trumping significant amounts of evidence. I still stand by the excellent outlay of the case put together by Stephen F. Hayes in the Weekly Standard. The liberals say it’s all lies. But I’m sorry, I’m going to have to see some real hard counter-evidence to any one of these to change my mind on this. I believe to do otherwise would be hugely irresponsible. There’s another great compendium of the work done on all this by former U.S. Marine infantry leader and counterterrorism instructor W. Thomas Smith Jr. And then, of course, there’s Free Republic’s famous collection of the hundreds of articles from around the world about documented and suspected connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And recently, the American Thinker ran a piece by Ray Robinson citing even more hard evidence in regards to the connection.

And to tell you the truth, the recent reporting on the declassified Pentagon report that allegedly trumps everything I or anyone else has ever said regarding this matter makes our case perhaps best of all. Let me read from The Washington Post,

“Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda in early 2004, after the U.S. invasion.”

To which my answer is, “What?” So because Zarqawi was wearing a different Death to Israel-Death to America Jihadi uniform– as if they wore uniforms - we’re not to be concerned about his dealings in Iraq? C’MON! And even better is this,

“The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts.”

Limited contacts? This is like "ONLY a few WMD!" Are these people so clueless as to actually not comprehend that even ONE contact is too many? That even ONE contact poses a significant threat to the safety and security of the American people?!! That any administration not taking swift and decisive action to address this threat head on would be guilty of significant dereliction of duty – A TRULY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE! ARE YOU HEARING THIS KUCINICH? YOU PIN-HEADED, BEEDY-EYED, SNEERING LITTLE PIECE OF…

CP: Mr. Vice President, please! Your heart. It’s all right. Calm down. Manilla, a Bombay and Tonic for the Vice President, stat!

VP: I’m sorry Charlie.

CP: It’s all right sir. I understand entirely. We’ll stop it there. You still have nineteen months left in office. I for one would like to have you see them through.

VP: Thank you Charlie. You’re very kind. Where are my damn pills?

Apr 18, 2007

Mediacracy Run by 11 Year-Old School Girl

This startling revelation, long suspected, was confirmed this morning upon MSNBC’s posting the above headline and image regarding America’s latest mass murder idol.

Criticizing the Mediacracy is predictable, tiresome, and cliché. No one is quicker to point that out than the Mediacracy itself. However, as a free press is essential to the survival of any democratic republic, mankind’s foremost democratic republic (Lefties: that would be the United States) must hold that free press to the highest and most rigorous standards of excellence.

It is at times such as these, however, when one hand of the Mediacracy is frantically trying to scoop the other, that its guard is dropped and we see it for what it is – a workshop for hysterical, left-leaning, reactive, overly-emotional would be novelists and actors for whom verification of facts, sources, and accuracy is very low on the list of priorities. That, or it is run be an 11 year-old school girl.

How else might we explain the level of intellect and maturity demonstrated in the incessant and unwavering themes that comprise the present day’s Mediacracy template:
* War is scary and bad
* George Bush is a big dummy
* Dick Cheney is a big meany
* Guns are scary and bad
* Republicans are greedy and don’t like black people (nor gays or trees)
* And now … mass murderers are not criminals, or socio-paths, but merely sad people whom we all failed to understand sufficiently.

Were every human being who has at some point said, “nobody understands me” to then go out and murder 30 innocent people as a result, the human race would have extinguished itself millennia ago. You see, little girl, it doesn’t matter whether or not anybody understood him, it is not acceptable to murder 30 innocent people; nor intentionally fly planes into buildings; nor threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction you may or may not have; nor blow yourself and 80 men and women at prayer to kingdom come. The “reason” is irrelevant. The act is evil and must be stopped. If “understanding” aids us in stopping future such acts, splendid, but the priority remains stopping those acts which wantonly destroy life and property. Sometimes this requires the use of those scary guns, police officers, even those mean old military people to keep the very bad people from terrorizing and killing the very good people.

Keeping this in mind might make your reporting in the future less dotty and idiotic. But I shall not hold my breath.



P.S. To any 11 year-old school girls taking offense at my associating them with the Mediacracy, my sincerest apologies.
Gabcast! Mediacracy Run by an 11 Year-Old School Girl AUDIO

Apr 11, 2007

Whither England?

"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst."

—C.S. Lewis
The shock is only just now wearing off. I find myself unable to squawk – let alone write – with sufficient eloquence regarding this matter. I shall, for now, defer to the following to parrot for me, as I hasten my plans for defection to the States.
We’re very glad the sailors are home. But safe return in this way - at what cost?

"And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
- Shakespeare's Henry V

I must now go and weep a while.

Cheers ...


Apr 6, 2007

The War on Cowardice

"This is no war of domination or imperial aggrandizement or material gain; no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man."

- Sir Winston Churchill - War Speech - September 3, 1939, House of Commons

One of the attributes of higher life forms – even Lefties - is their aptitude for comprehensive thinking: that ability to discern patterns and connections not immediately apparent and thus recognize the greater reality of a given circumstance. When it comes to utter fantasy – the Global Warming Crisis or the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for instance - Lefties are quite adept at finding patterns and connections, particularly where none exist. When it comes to matters of national security, however, they opt to disconnect this function of their brains.

The latest instance of this selective brain engagement occurred March 27, 2007, when Democratic staffers on the House Armed Services Committee issued a memo entitled "Style Guide for Defense Authorization Report." With this memo they instructed aides as follows:

"When referencing military operations throughout the world, please be as specific as possible. Please avoid using colloquialisms such as, 'the war on terrorism, or the 'Long War.' Please do not use the term 'global war on terrorism.' "

In reaction to the memo, an irate and flabbergasted House Minority Leader, John Boehner, asked "How do Democrats expect America to fight and win a war they deny is even taking place?" As we all know, the answer is: they don’t. After all, Michael Moore has so graciously assured us, "There is no terrorist threat."

Lefties claim the restrictions on speech prescribed in this memo are not intended to be political; they merely seek to be more precise about military operations. Thus, they argue, phrases such as "the war in Iraq," the "war in Afghanistan, "operations in the Horn of Africa" or "ongoing military operations throughout the world" are more effective then sweeping terms such as "Global War on Terror" or "The Long War." In certain instances, this is unquestionably true. However, in terms of ensuring that the citizens of Western Civilization fully appreciate the vast scope of the threat we face, such semantic dissection is nothing short of suicidal; naïve at best, deepest cynicism at worst, but in either case suicidal.

In truth, criticism of the branding of our current struggle as a "War on Terror" is nothing new. Not a few commentators on the Right have been critical of the term, though for far less idiotic and defeat-ensuring reasons. Most argue that, in fact, the term does not go far enough in scope nor specificity. Many alternatives have been bandied about: War on Islamo-Fascism, War on Extremist Ideologies, but these don’t present well on t-shirts and bumper stickers. More importantly, they too fail to identify the full scope of the peril we are in, for it is becoming increasingly evident that we face as much threat from forces that are internal and insidious as from those that are external and explosive.

Thus, I unveil here for the first time my definitive brand name for the war formerly known as The Global War on Terror: THE WAR ON COWARDICE. (copyright pending, order #354.98B - 4.6.07).

The answer is, of course, cowards. My dear readers, our planet is lousy with cowards. We must either defeat them or become them. And talk about comprehensive! Cowards pervade every aspect of our world, seeking in countless ways to destroy Western Civilization. Why? Because Western Civilization is premised upon principles that demand and reward the best in mankind, principles that inspire terror and hatred in cowards.

For the better part of our histories, we citizens of Western Civilization - both Left and Right – embraced these principles and defended them whence e’re they were imperiled. Now, when these principles are perhaps in gravest danger, are we to be so divided and conquered? Or will we manage once again to summon the best within each of us, and find the strength to fight this war "to establish and revive the stature of man" ?



Apr 3, 2007

The Useful Idiot Hall of Fame

Our kudos to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Republican Congressmen Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts, and Robert Aderholt for entering themselves into the ever expanding Useful Idiot Hall of Fame!

Here they are joined by John Kerry , Jane Fonda and other giants of intellect and human compassion who have taken it upon themselves to show the world how fun loving and cuddly we truly are, even if doing so means the utter debasement of everything Western Civilization has strived to secure for mankind over the past two plus centuries (i.e. human rights, rule of law, free enterprise etc. etc.) Well done and thank you for your support.