Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Here are the 10 most important COVID-related questions which the news media is ignoring

December 14, 2020
John Ziegler

Contributor

The recent massive surge of COVID cases here in America and around much of the world has been both shocking and edifying. Clearly, people like me who have promoted the theory on "low-threshold herd immunity" were probably wrong in our overly-optimistic analysis (though it should at least be noted that Sweden's current death rate is WAY below what would be expected based on their sudden dramatic increase in cases, and already rapidly declining).

However, based on this new information, the other "side" of this debate also has a lot of explaining to do, but because the news media is deeply invested in the very same narrative as the "experts" and the lockdown governors, there is zero pressure forcing this to actually happen. This is further validating my prediction that the COVID storyline was uniquely designed for the news media to only allow one perspective to be fully/fairly explored, thus ensuring that the radical remaking of America, which effectively happened in just a few days in March, can never be credibly questioned.

Here are just some of the many important questions which the vast majority of the news media has systematically ignored, seemingly because they don't fit their preferred version of reality.

What does the recent surge in cases say about the effectiveness of lockdowns?:

As devastating as the November/December outbreak has been for the "herd immunity" argument, it has been arguably worse for the "lockdowns work" presumption. There has been, at best, no correlation between heavy lockdowns and areas that have done better/worse during this third wave.

For instance, heavy-lockdown states California and Illinois have fared horribly, even worse than freer large states like Florida and Texas. And yet the news media is remarkably uncurious about how this could possibly be the case if government lockdowns actually work, and they never even contemplate the increasingly obvious possibility that we simply have very little control over a virus which currently has no vaccine.

What is the collateral damage of lockdowns?:

Even the World Health Organization admitted that the collateral damage of long-term lockdowns outweigh whatever benefits they might provide. Tellingly, the news media muted this pronouncement, and, as is their normal M.O. in these situations, did their best to claim that the statement was somehow being taken out of context.

The reality is that, even if you discount the huge economic ramifications of long-term lockdowns (which obviously also has a health component to it), the purely medical damage being done in the areas of suicide, drug abuse, child abuse, lack of normal care, and mental health problems has been extraordinary.

The most infuriating/telling tactic which the news media routinely uses to defuse this issue (when they are not completely ignoring it) is that they blame these impacts, especially those in the economic realm as being "caused by the pandemic." However, it is very clear the LOCKDOWNS which are the origin, not COVID itself.

Why do masks not seem to positively impact the data?:

There is no aspect of COVID governmental restrictions in which the news media is more deeply invested than mask mandates. Faith in the power of masks to stop people from spreading a virus has now reached the level of religious belief (which may be why president-elect Joe Biden has chosen the very "sciency" round number of 100 days of mask-wearing as "penance" for the Trump presidency).

The general conservative view of mask mandates has always been that the evidence that they actually work does not come close to the threshold which should exist for the government to force them on a public in a country that was formerly based on freedom and liberty. The fact that there is no legitimate explanation, nor even any media introspection as to why, based on the data, the pro-mask states/countries have recently done no better—and sometimes worse—than the places with no mask mandate, does nothing to dissuade many people from concluding that mask mandates are based much more in religion than in real science.

If COVID was around way before March, what does that really mean?:

As a resident of California, it never made any sense to me that our state was not hit by COVID before mid-March. As the evidence began to mount that my suspicions of a much earlier timeframe were correct, I wrote that, in a rational world, this new information would radically alter our view of our response to the virus.

Since then, it has become obvious that most of the west coast was exposed to COVID at the end of 2019, and yet normal life went on, especially in extremely busy California, without anyone even noticing, and without the state suffering a major explosion of cases once the official counting began. The news media should at least make a cursory effort to get to the bottom of this very key issue (unless, of course, they are frightened of what they might be forced to conclude).

What is the real evidence of significant asymptomatic spread?:

The foundational premise of the vast majority of COVID restrictions is the presumption that asymptomatic spread is a very substantial factor in why the virus is not under control. But the news media has blindly accepted this basis as gospel, despite there being some legitimate reasons for skepticism.

The WHO stated that asymptomatic spread was "very rare." This was a statement so politically incorrect, and the media cries of "Blasphemy!" were so strong, that they were forced to do an immediate walk-back, with the news media once again bending over backward to rationalize that this was just a misstatement.

America's media darling Dr. Anthony Fauci said, empathically, at the start of this year, that asymptomatic spread is "never" the driver of viral outbreaks. The news media, much like they did with his similar early pronouncement that masks are ineffective against viruses, has memory-holed the video and blocked for Fauci on yet another "misstatement," while also, bizarrely, still treating him as if he is somehow infallible.

What is the average age of "COVID Death"?:

In a rational world, the second most important fact (after how many deaths it has directly caused) about the coronavirus would be what the average age of death is for people who die because of it. However, in the world in which we actually reside, this information is only known by a very small percentage of the population, it is virtually impossible to even theoretically calculate on a national level.

In fact, when you Google "what is the average age of COVID death in the United States?" the website which can immediately answer even the most mundane question suspiciously has no reply. Instead, it highlights a link for the CDC where, at best, you can surmise that the "median" age of death is 79-80.

Several states and many countries which do provide this specific critical information have that number at over 80. We do know that about 60% of USA deaths are 75 or older and that 80% are at least 65.

Considering that the USA life expectancy is just over 78 years, these facts should be widely known and have a dramatic impact on the public perception of how best to handle the situation. Instead, the topic is hardly ever directly discussed, and even then it is in the context of unfairly condemning anyone who dares to imply that the lives lost to COVID are not as costly as those who are killed in a war, or a terrorist attack.

What happened to the flu?

You wouldn't know it from the news media, but while the United States is suffering from record numbers of COVID cases, we are also experiencing the lightest flu season in modern history. Shouldn't we at least be considering the possibility that these horrible COVID numbers are not nearly as catastrophic as they first appear because what is really happening is that we are, to at least some significant degree, simply renaming the flu and that this surge has been provoked primarily by a change in seasons?

At the very least, this reality blows a huge hole in the only argument that lockdown proponents have offered for their ineffectiveness (that people all over the world have suddenly stopped paying attention to their orders at exactly the same time). After all, if the flu has been eliminated because of all the masks and social distancing, you cannot also say that we are not really using enough masks and social distancing.

Whatever happened to fearing absolute executive power?:

The topic on which liberals have been most disappointing and obviously hypocritical is that of the overt crackdown on the most basic of civil liberties which has been led by tyrannical Democratic governors. This not only goes against the fundamental principles of liberalism but is particularly outrageous since the Democratic Party impeached President Trump earlier this year for actions they understandably believed would eventually lead to dictatorial rule.

Under the guise of endless "emergency powers" (which were clearly never intended for a situation like this) these governors have claimed unlimited authority with not a shred of resistance from a liberal establishment which used to pretend to be against fascism above all else. Even court rulings theoretically curtailing the out-of-control Democratic Governors of California, Pennsylvania, and Michigan have been mostly ignored by the news media because they are inconvenient to their narrative.

Why should we trust politicians who have been catastrophically wrong and hypocritical?:

Of all the many outrageous elements of our Governor Gavin Newsom's autocratic response to the pandemic, there are two which stand out above the others.

The first is that this all began with him justifying an unprecedented action by telling a MASSIVE and obvious lie: that California was about to have over 25 million COVID cases in the next eight weeks. The fact that it took nine MONTHS for California to reach ONE million positive tests (while never having our healthcare system come very close to being "overwhelmed") is now never even brought up, even though it should have instantly shattered his credibility on this topic for all-time.

The second is that he can have the gall, and the news media's backing, to give orders shutting down restaurants that are barely surviving just after being caught in a scandal where he attended a party at a fancy indoor eatery where there was no social distancing or wearing of masks.

What are the ramifications of the precedents being set?:

This is an area where there has been almost no major media coverage despite it being perhaps the biggest issue facing our country going forward. Even with multiple effective vaccines on the horizon, it seems all too clear that a very small number of people, many of whom are unelected, have set up new rules for our society where it may very well be impossible for us to return to the pre-COVID era.

For instance, using these new very low standards for dramatic governmental action, why would we not shut down every winter for flu season? And surely whenever a new virus is discovered (which happens fairly regularly) we will have to do the same until we are sure it is "safe." And if the government can regulate our lives for a year like they have over something that, at worst, is still in the ballpark of a bad flu, then haven't we just telegraphed how easy it is for us to be controlled forever?

When 'Abolish America' stops being symbolic

Al Drago / Stringer | Getty Images

Prosecutors stopped a New Year’s Eve bombing plot rooted in ideology that treats the US as an enemy to be destroyed.

Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles announced that four members of an anti-capitalist extremist group were arrested on Friday for plotting coordinated bombings in California on New Year’s Eve.

According to the Department of Justice, the suspects planned to detonate explosives concealed in backpacks at various businesses while also targeting ICE agents and vehicles. The attacks were supposed to coincide with midnight celebrations.

Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed.

The plot was disrupted before any lives were lost. The group behind the plot calls itself the Turtle Island Liberation Front. That name matters more than you might think.

When ideology turns operational

For years, the media has told us that radical, violent rhetoric on the left is mostly symbolic. They explained away the angry slogans, destructive language, and calls for “liberation” as performance or hyperbole.

Bombs are not metaphors, however.

Once explosives enter the picture, framing the issue as harmless expression becomes much more difficult. What makes this case different is the ideological ecosystem behind it.

The Turtle Island Liberation Front was not a single-issue group. It was anti-American, anti-capitalist, and explicitly revolutionary. Its members viewed the United States as an illegitimate occupying force rather than a sovereign nation. America, in their view, is not a nation, not a country; it is a structure that must be dismantled at any cost.

What ‘Turtle Island’ really means

“Turtle Island” is not an innocent cultural reference. In modern activist usage, it is shorthand for the claim that the United States has no moral or legal right to exist. It reframes the country as stolen land, permanently occupied by an illegitimate society.

Once people accept that premise, the use of violence against their perceived enemies becomes not only permissible, but virtuous. That framing is not unique to one movement. It appears again and again across radical networks that otherwise disagree on nearly everything.

Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements do not share the same vision for the future. They do not even trust one another. But they share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed. The alignment of radical, hostile ideologies is anything but a coincidence.

The red-green alliance

For decades, analysts have warned about what is often called the red-green alliance: the convergence of far-left revolutionary politics with Islamist movements. The alliance is not based on shared values, but on shared enemies. Capitalism, national sovereignty, Western culture, and constitutional government all fall into that category.

History has shown us how this process works. Revolutionary coalitions form to tear down an existing order, promising liberation and justice. Once power is seized, the alliance fractures, and the most ruthless faction takes control.

Iran’s 1979 revolution followed this exact pattern. Leftist revolutionaries helped topple the shah. Within a few years, tens of thousands of them were imprisoned, executed, or “disappeared” by the Islamist regime they helped install. Those who do not understand history, the saying goes, are doomed to repeat it.

ALEX WROBLEWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

This moment is different

What happened in California was not a foreign conflict bleeding into the United States or a solitary extremist acting on impulse. It was an organized domestic group, steeped in ideological narratives long validated by universities, activist networks, and the media.

The language that once circulated on campuses and social media is now appearing in criminal indictments. “Liberation” has become a justification for explosives. “Resistance” has become a plan with a date and a time. When groups openly call for the destruction of the United States and then prepare bombs to make it happen, the country has entered a new phase. Pretending things have not gotten worse, that we have not crossed a line as a country, is reckless denial.

Every movement like this depends on confusion. Its supporters insist that calls for America’s destruction are symbolic, even as they stockpile weapons. They denounce violence while preparing for it. They cloak criminal intent in the language of justice and morality. That ambiguity is not accidental. It is deliberate.

The California plot should end the debate over whether these red-green alliances exist. They do. The only question left is whether the country will recognize the pattern before more plots advance farther — and succeed.

This is not about one group, one ideology, or one arrest. It is about a growing coalition that has moved past rhetoric and into action. History leaves no doubt where that path leads. The only uncertainty is whether Americans will step in and stop it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.