Bush is not saying he has the right to break the law at all. What he is saying is that the Executive Office has the power to perform unwarranted physical searches in matters of foriegn intelligence. It has been done time and time again by the Executive Office since the times of Reagan and Clinton. Now Bush is exercising the same authority. There is nothing impeachable in what he is doing. He has not broken the law.

A working example of where this authority is used is this. Intelligence agents legally intercept an international phone call where someone discusses an attack against an American landmark. How does the intelligence community gather information about this planned attack and how do they prevent it? They search where they know and/or believe that information to be. If they waited for a FISA court to approve their every move they would be days and weeks behind the intelligene they were seeking as well as most likely be unable to prevent the planned attack in a timely manner. Courts are notoriously slow. So if they have 5 searches to perform at the same time, must each be analysized by the court (which according to law it doesn't) before any can be executed? what about 10 or 100. Courts backlog. Our domestic courts do and it gets worse and worse. Courts for foriegn intelligence gathering aren't the answer. And to reiterate, no laws were broken.

WRONG!!!!

FISA has safeguards to allow Bush to do everything he did and to do it immediately.

FISA has a provision that in any emergency, they can do the surveillance. Then, they have 15 days to go back to the FISA Court for ex post facto permission.

The FISA Court doesn't backlog. I'd like to know where you got that false fact.

You may have the opinion that no law was broken. But, that doesn't mean that no law has been broken.

Bush has the opinion that torture is legal. That didn't make torture legal either.

If the law prevented Bush from doing necessary things, then he could ask the congress to pass legislation authorizing him to do twhat he needed to do. The fact that Bush didn't do this allows only a few conclusions.

1. Bush is out of control and thinks he is above the law. Evidence for this is that he claims we get our rights from God, not the Constitiution. So, it can be reasonably assumed that he believes that when God tells him to do something, he is authorized to do it, regardless of the constitiutionality of the action.

2. Bush knew that what he was doing would not be approved by the FISA Court because it had nothging to do with national security. For example, if Bush were spying on political opponents to advance his political agenda, the FISA court wouldn't approve that.

Frankly, I don't know which of the above reasons motivated Bush to ignore the law. There's pretty good evidence for each.

But, I tend to think it is reason number 2 because I think everything Bush does is political and to gain political advantage without any consideration for the national welfare or security.

Repsectfully, I suggest that you get some true facts before you post here again.

my facts as to the legality of Bushes actions are Executive Order 12333, the FISA Act itself, Article 2 of the Constitution, precedent set by Carter, Reagan and Clinton as well as Title 50 of the US Code. All of these give the president the authority to conduct unwarrented searches for foreign intelligence which are significantly different than criminal domestic searches.

Since we're talking about facts and proving them, can you now prove where in these documents it makes it illegal for the president to conduct these intelligence gathering actions?

FISA was passed to stop and prevent the kind of abuse which Bush has just committed.

The executive order you cited was issued in 1981. FISA was enacted in 1978. The executive order states repeatedly "consistent with applicable United States law". Additionally, this executive order is concerned with foreign intelligence, not domestic.

Executive orders are not legal simply becasue issued. For example, if George Bush issued an executive order for the federal marshals to pick you up and hang you from the nearest suitable tree or lamp post until dead, that would not be legal.

According to Attorney General of the United States Alberto Gonzales (the one who also wrote an opinion that torture is legal.), the authorization for bypassing FISA is the Authorization to Use Military Force passed by congress in September, 2001. He doesn't claim that this act mentions wiretapping only that he decided it included wiretapping.

Are you claiming that you know better than the Attorney General where he got the authorization for Bush to perform warrantless domestic surveillance?

As for FISA, I explained this to you previously. Bush or Gonzales can authorize warrantless surviellance for up to 72 hours by simply notifying the FISA court they are performing the surveillance. Then, they must follow up with the court after the fact or request a warrant to continue surveillance beyond 72 hours.

So, while you claim FISA authorizes Bush' warrantless searches, FISA actually provides procedures for legally conducting warrantless searches which Bush ignored. Had Bush followed FISA, these warrantless searches would be legal. He didn't. Therefore Bush' warrantless searches were illegal.

As for Gonzales' claim that the Authorization to Use Military Force gave Bush the power to conduct warrantless searches without regard to applicable law. If that were true, than there would be no need for the Patriot Act. Bush could simply implement the Patriot Act by executve order as authorized by the Authorization to Use Miliatry Force.

Just out of curiosity, are you getting your false facts from Rush Limbaugh or from an RNC talking points memo?

Yes the FISA act provides oversite by the FISA court. It also provides the President the power through the Attorney General to take action without a warrent. It's in 1822:

§ 1822. Authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Presidential authorization
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President, acting through the Attorney General, may authorize physical searches without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if—
(A) the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— .....

the full text of 1822 can be found at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001822----000-.html

as i read it, the President has authority to act in the manner he described in his speech.

I understand your point about Executive Orders. Yes, the issuing of an executive order does not immideatly make it legal - such as described in your example. However, they are legal and binding. Has the legality of executive order 12333 been challenged? If not then the President and those he authorizes can act according to it.

Again, what law has Bush broken? The FISA Act (as I have shown) and Executive Order 12333 authorize Bush & co to do what he has said he has done. What law says what he has done is illegal? I have already demonstrated that by passing the FISA court is not illegal.

Excuse me, but the section of the FISA law that you are claiming applies to what Bush has authorized is the section of FISA that actually applies to Physical Searches.

The first subchapter in this law actually applies to Electronic Surveillance. The subchapter you cited refers to Physical searches.

Let's try actually looking at the applicable section of the law.

sorry again for the broken post.

FISA does apply to domestic intelligence gathering as well. It's occasionally used in criminal cases. More importantly, there are people within US borders who aim to harm the country. Those people that collude with terrorists, whether foriegn nationals within our borders, various kinds of permanent residents or even US citizens who collude with those who would hurt our country are the target of these searhes and fall under the FISA act and executive order 12333. Yes these searches follow the law and are legal for domestic searches.

First, you are intentionally misrepresenting FISA. FISA allows for warrantless action to be taken - but only with notification and follow-up.

Sceond, the Attorney General is not citing FISA. According to the Attorney General, FISA does not authorize Bush's warrantless searchres. The Attorney General claims it is the force authorization of September 2001 that authorizes the warrantless searches.

Third, FISA you quoted notification within one year. BUSH DIDN'T FOLLOW THAT EITHER.

Bush is a common criminal who deserves to be impeached, tried, and locked up in prison for the maximum sentence.

You are very good at distorting the facts to fit the situation.

Here's a little test to see how good you really are.

Assume that George Bush took an AK-47, set it up in the window of the Oval Office, and shot dead 15 nuns walking on the sidewalk near the White House.

Please use your magnificent powers of rationalization to convince us that Bush behaved legally and that, in fact, he was acting in the best interests of the United States.

In your example the President is obviously acting illegaly. I'm not a Republician or a Bush sympathiser. I also am not one who would impeach a President when he has done nothing illegal. For the third time, what law has he broken? I've given many examples of where he is/was well within the law.

This discussion is not between you, me & the attorney general so his justifications for any matter are largely immaterial to our discussion. I am making my own case on the web for the President's actions.

How have I twisted the laws? Yes it says there needs to be review and I believe that there has been (see below) and that there will be by the FISA court and others. It also says that the President can act without a warrent independent of any other party when a judicially imposed law enforcement warrant requirement would "unduly frustrate the efforts of Government to protect itself" This burden is more easily met in the foreign intelligence setting.

The President is acting both according to our national defense interests and the law of the land.

Some questions I'd ask you to answer:

What law(s) has he broken?

How do you know that there hasn't been review in a timely manner prescribed by law? (Bush cited an instance where he moved without a warrent. No statement was made as to the resolution of that action. He could have very well have since crossed the t's and dotted the i's all legaly.

What bearing does Executive Order 12333 have on the Presidents actions - does it make them legal or illegal?

Where does it say that the President not empowered to do what he did?

-----

I wonder if you are analysing this situation as though it were a criminal search of a US citizen. This is a foriegn intelligence gathering search on people suspect of connection with Al Quadea and other terrorist organizations. The burden of proof are different in each case. The need for warrents are different in each case.

I get the feeling that you're angry at Bush and I can respect that. Please show how he has done anything illegal in what he said he did.

just remembered...sorry for the broken post.

as far as the FISA court backlog, I didn't say that they had backlogged rather that they would. what U.S. court do you know of that doesn't have one? that's the nature of a judiciary. to review decisions to the extent a court reviews them creates a backlog. as i said before in my example, if intelligences have to perform multiple searches on the same threat how will this kind of court approval (which as of now is not legally necessary) be done in a timely manner?

You forgot that the Democrats are so powerful and so hateful that they would have blocked increased funding, judges, and staff to support the added load because Democrats hate God, hate Jesus, hate the United States, want all of us to die, and want the terrorists to win.

What does this have to do with Democrats? I made no mention of them nor do I feel that they are germane to the discussion.

As for any possible funding, when has that ever solved the problem of judicial backlog? Again, what US Court do you know of that doesn't have one. And the Supreme Court doesn't work in this case because it has the power to reject cases - and even there there's a backlog of cases being appealed to it.

The FISA court has a single function - servicing a limited set of executive branch law enforcement activities pertaining to national security.

There are currently 11 FISA judges (well, until Judge Robertson resigned in protest of Bush's law breaking. )

All it takes is the funding for salaries, office space, and staff to increase the number of FISA judges. They are appointed by the Chief Justice from the pool of already sitting federal judges, so, no Senate confirmation is needed.

So, despite your claim to the contrary it comes down to money.

And, by the way, you are the only person who has mentioned a backlog or that it takes too much time to go to court and that is because you raised the backlog because it is a red-herring.

The only possible way to create a backlog in the FISA court would be by refusing to provide the funding.

Since the Republicans love our country and take our serurity seriously and the Democrats are trattors who hate our country, surely, you must agree that the Democrats would fillibuster the funding to give terrorists the best possible chance to kill us.

After all, the Democrats and a few traitor Republicans are fillibustering the renewal of the Patriot Act. And, obviously, if you don't vote for the Patriot Act, you ain't no patriot. That should be proof enough that Democrats are traitors and that the poor besieged Republicans are doing every thing they can to save us from terrorists and for Jesus.

I'm going to break this out into it's parts as I see them.

Backlogs can occur anywhere. I have never in my 26 years (yes a short time) seen a court act quickly. It's just the nature of the beast. Even if there were a ratio of one judge per search it would still go slowly. Judicial review is slow. It's meant to be that way. So if not a backlog - as you have shown might not happen at all - then at least very slowly as our justice system is evidence of.

Red-herring. No such. Let me say again. I'm not a Republican and I'm not a Democrat or any other party. Don't care for them. My point was more about the speed and efficency of the FISA court as it relates to agents ability to acquire intelligence. It is a valid point.

Democrats. There are good ones and bad ones just like any other party. My current state representative is a Democrat whom I'm very proud of and voted for - Dora Olivo. She does great work for the state of Texas.

The Patriot Act is similar to what we're talking about but is a tangent that would distract from the issue at hand. It has its own whirlwind of debate surrounding it.

No. You came here to defend George Bush' criminal behavior.

Now, you have drug us into this silly backwater discussing court backlogs because your other claims have been successfully refuted.

1. Bush went around FISA because he is a power drunk bully who claims authority to do anything he wants and then calls anyone who challenges him a traitor who is endangering our country. This is an indefensibile position as has been proven by the fact that you want to to talk about backlogs that don't exist in a court that George Bush illegally bypsses.

2. The FISA court is setup with all kinds of fail safes. NO OTHER COURT IN THE UNITED STATES ALLOWS WARRANTLESS SEARCHES FOLLOWED UP POST DE FACTO WITH THE COURT. The reason for this is so that when urgency dictates that you can't wait for the court, you don't have to. So, even if there were backlogs in the FISA court, it would be irrelevent to taking needed surveillance action.

So, again, this is irrelevant and a waste of time. Please do not expect me to respond further to discussions about court backlogs.

Yes I did come here to defend Bush's actions and show that they are not criminal, not to defend his crimnial actions as he has committed none. I don't see how we disagree about why I'm here.

Maybe you missed my response: http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2005/12/18/1454302.html#542522
So I'll reiterate here. Bush did not "go around" FISA or any other law. The powers of the executive office are broad and he acted within the bounds of his powers. I have demonstrated where in FISA and other laws it says that he can act without a warrent for indefinite periods of time:

"It also says that the President can act without a warrent independent of any other party when a judicially imposed law enforcement warrant requirement would "unduly frustrate the efforts of Government to protect itself" This burden is more easily met in the foreign intelligence setting."

Please get over the word backlog. It was a split post. This comments section doesn't allow for editing, so when I remembered that point, I had to create a new post for it.

FISA allows for the search of people within the US without a warrent. I have shown in the text of the legislation and with refrences to other laws and statutes that these searches neither need a warrant nor the courts permission on any kind of time table. Yes, all searches have to go back to the FISA court and be approved. There is not a time table for this. The FISA act and other directives allow for the bypassing of each time frame whether it be 72 hours or 1 year or anything else. The searches are approved by the FISA court at a later date. That is what the law says in its text. By bringing up the b-wrod, I was pointing out how it would be impossible in all cases to have the FISA court review all searches even in the 72 hour window. I showed how it could not work efficently. Again, I never said there were. I only said there would be. That is why the FISA act and other directives allow for the initial bypass of the courts.

In the course of our discussion, you have said several times that Bush broke the law, but you have not yet said which law he broke or how he broke it.

For all the times you've said my statements are my opinions or are untrue, how do you have any more information about this than I do? How do you know what has been done in the FISA courts? How do you know that these searches weren't handled in a legal manner? What information other than the news are you working off of. I am working off of the news and the text of several laws and directives.

I wonder if you are analysing this situation as though it were a criminal search of a US citizen. This is a foriegn intelligence gathering search on people suspect of connection with Al Quadea and other terrorist organizations. The burden of proof are different in each case. The need for warrents are different in each case.

I get the feeling that you're angry at Bush and I can respect that. Please show how he has done anything illegal in what he said he did.

I don't think you're a traitor at all. Neither do I believe that is what Bush is saying. First me. I think it's great that we hold such different and strong opinions. That's what makes our country great.

Bush is dealing with a hard to talk about issue when he talks about his actions and Patriotism. Some of his actions HAVE to be clandestine. If you tell everyone what you're going to do to catch terrorists and the like, the terrorists will have a heads up and not be caught. Now there are people who are activly trying to either frustrate what Bush is trying to do or get him to not be clandestine about it. In both cases this stops him from pursuing foreign intelligence and by extension national security. If he stops proactive measures like wiretaps we know nothing and can only wait until the next attack hits us. If he openly discusses every move that he and the intelligence community make then the targets know their targets and change accordingly. It is these two kinds of people that Bush has said were un-patriotic because they, knowlingly or not, are frustrating our foriegn intelligence gathering and by extension our national defense.



I have done my best to answer your several questions. I would ask that you now answer mine:

what law has Bush broken?

how did he break said law?

How do you know that there hasn't been review of these searches by the FISA courts and others in a manner prescribed by law?

how does Executive Order 12333 and other laws and directives not give the President and those he directs authority to carry out these searches?

why shouldn't these searches be clandestine?

Why can't our government search for those who collude with terrorists (i am pointing out any group here) on our own soil?

I really don't want to spend my entire vacation splintering your claims so I will just go for a few of the "low hanging fruit" in your defense.

First you are attempting to defend Electronic Surveillance by citing the section of the law that directs Physical Searches. Until you cite the applicable section of the law your defense is meaningless.

Second, you asked what law Bush is violating. I submit by surveilling American Persons he is violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The US Constitution is the one document that he [Bush] is sworn to protect.

Third, you claimed that the section of the law that you claim supports your contention that Bush has not done anything illegal allow the President (or the AG) to circumvent the FISA court when circumstances would "unduly frustrate the efforts of Government to protect itself" actually this phrase DOES NOT appear in this section of the code.

Actually in the section of the code you are referring to it requires the AG to deliver reports to the "House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate at least 30 days before their effective date".

There is a time limit "The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a copy of the certification." This statement in in $1822 (a) (3). The specific certification required is in $1822 (a) (2).

How much more do you need to show your defense has no merit. Executive Orders are completely meaningless with respect to providing legislative sanction for Executive Branch actions.

I tried pointing out that executive orders don't make law, but, I was ignored. So, maybe you're comments will have more effect.

Executive orders are administrative policies and procedures for implementing existing laws. Executive orders do not make laws.

Look. It is really quite simple.

FISA was created to handle the exact situation Bush chose to ignore by spying without court permission (legal) and then not coming back to the court for approval (illegal).

You are making claims that are made by no one, including the Attorney General of the United States and George Bush.

They admit that they did not go to the FISA court.

Now, they are so desperate to come up with an excuse that they have trotted out former NSA Deputy Director to claim that that "getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it 'involves marshaling arguments' and 'looping paperwork around.'"

In other words, they're simply too lazy to do the paperwork. When this doesn't work, I fully expect them to use the "dog ate my homework" defense.

Please note the post I have just put up from David Sirota.

As for what I think of this discussion with you, Here's a quote from David which sums up my thoughts on the matter:

In the desperate, mob-like rush to kiss the fat white ass of power even as it farts the most foul-smelling lies right in their face, none of these people have answered or even asked the very simple question: If the president is permitted to break this law with absolutely no concrete justification at all, what law isn't he allowed to break? Can he walk into a 7-11 and rob it? Can he steal taxpayer money and pocket it as his own? Or how about executing his political enemies? Can he do that?

I consider you to be one of "these people" referenced above and do not find this dialog to be iinteresting or intellectually stimulating. I find it depressing that one person in this country would actually believe that they can seriously make an aregument defending George Bush's criminal behavior.

"I consider you to be one of 'these people' referenced above"

Why do you insist on lumping me together with anyone else? You spend little time answering my arguements and no time answering my questions. You seem to be responding to the press around this topic rather than to me. You seem to slant toward the most inflaming ways of saying things making this a flame war rather than a discussion.

As far as the Attorney General & Co defense of the President, what does that have to do with our discussion here? I make my own defense and he makes his. They are both valid. It is not at all contridictiory. As I am not "one of those people" I feel no need to parrot what others may say. I make my own arguments.

To again demonstrate that I do not "kiss the fat white ass of power", I was just as defensive of Clinton. I am not a Republican, Democrat or Bush symapthiser. What I am is a respector of the Presidency. I believe that Bush has done nothing to betray the public trust. If it is later shown (which you have not done here) that he has done something impeachable, then I will support his impeachment.

I await your last word on the subject.

Unless you have secret credentials which you have not disclosed, you do not have the standing to make claims that are directly contradicted Bush, the Attorney General, Bush' spokespeople, legal scholars and even Republican Senators and Representatives. I have addressed your arguments and you continue to claim that I have not addressed them. Excellent propaganda technique! Assert your story and stick to it even in the face of contradictory evidence. If you simply repeat it enough, some people will actually believe you.

For example: "Intelligent design is science. There is a controversy among scientists about validity of intelligent design. Intelligent design is science. There is a controversy among scientists about validity of intelligent design. Intelligent design is science. There is a controversy among scientists about validity of intelligent design. Intelligent design is science. There is a controversy among scientists about validity of intelligent design. Intelligent design is science. There is a controversy among scientists about validity of intelligent design. Intelligent design is science. There is a controversy among scientists about validity of intelligent design. Intelligent design is science. There is a controversy among scientists about validity of intelligent design. Intelligent design is science. There is a controversy among scientists about validity of intelligent design. Intelligent design is science. There is a controversy among scientists about validity of intelligent design."

Just because I repeated these lies over and over again doesn't make them true. But, it is a great propaganda technique.

The Attorney General (actually Ashcroft at the time) and the President's Chief Counsel (Gonzalez at the time) rendered the legal opinion that Bush could ignore FISA. You know, like Gonzalez said Bush could torture people.

The administrations excuses for Bush' illegal wiretapping change from day to day as each excuse gets knocked down.

You are the only person I've seen claim that FISA allows warrantless searches with an unlimited time frame for ex post facto judicial review. Everyone else says that FISA would have allowed the surveillance as long as the judicial oversite requirements were met within a specified time periiod. You claim there is no time limit. Even Colin Powell agrees with my assessment. I am not an admirer of Colin Powell, but, he is correct on this point.

The execute order states that it follows all applicable laws. FISA is one of those laws. Therefore, you cannot use that executive order to claim FISA doesn't pertain.

No constitutional scholar asserts that the constitution gives Bush this power - particularly when controlling legislation exists stating it isn't legal.

Bush' spokespeople have stated that they have no intention to go to the FISA court and then they turn around and make excuses for why they didn't use the FISA court.

I might note that Bush could have asked for FISA to be changed, he could have asked for the powers he has claimed be added to the Patriot Act. He could have allowed a challenge to his claimed power and taken it to the Supreme Court. But, he did none of those things because he is an arrogant, corrupt, criminal.

Bush plays hardball politics and then his supporters whine when they are dealt with in the same manner. This week, Bush has been running around spouting the lie that "the Democrats are against the Patriot Act" and that it will be the "Democrats fault" if we get attacked if the Patriot Act expires.

First, enough Republicans joined the Democrats fillibuster the Patriot Act renewal.

Second, the Senate had the votes to renew the Patriot Act for 90 days so that the problems with it could be dealt with in a more deliberative manner. But, Bush said he would veto that legislation, forcing the Patriot Act to expire January 1st. So, it was Bush, not the Democrats endangering the public - if you buy that argument in the first place. And, actually, only a some provisions of the Patirot Act were set to expire.

Over and over again, we see George Bush attacking anyone who doestn't agree with him and kiss his fat white farting ass. John McCain is crazy and has an illegimate non-white child. Max Cleland gets morphed into Saddam Hussein. John Kerry is a lying coward. Jack Murtha is a cut and run coward.

The game Bush plays is "the only thing that counts is political victory for me." He politicizes every issue to destroy his opposition.

I am tired and disgusted by it. So, I have adopted his political philosophy. I will do anything necessary to destroy George Bush short of physical harm.

Your arguments really are full of crap and George Bush really is a criminal. I have repeatedly answered your arguments.

So, unless you are a constitutional scholar or have some other credentials that qualify you to assert the correctness of an argument that is not being made by those who know what they are talking about nor, indeed, by Bush and his own spokespeople, you have no credibility to assert what you assert.

Unless, you simply want to relegate this to an argument about belief. You believe that what you have cited justifies Bush' actions. That is really all you have because, unless you have some credentials or standing which you have not divulged, you are in fact one of those kissing the farting fat white ass of power.

I predict that there is nothing George Bush could do, including machine gunning nuns from a window in the Oval Office that would cause you to not continue to support him.

The standard for impeachment and trial is lying about sex. Bush has most certainly met that burden. That is different from being found guilty. Impeachment is a political act and when there is enough power in congress lined up against Bush, I hope that congress will have the courage to impeach the lying bastard.

Call me cynical if you wish. I prefer to think of myself as carrying on the tradition of the WWII French Resistance and those supporting Bush as the Vichy French.

This is not a game. The future of our country is at stake and I will not lie down so that Bush can run over me by terrorizing and propagandizing the public with his lies. These are desperate times and they require desperate measures.

Rothgar:

No point in pointing out that marroncito is mistaken. Marroncito thinks that she's a legal expert and, if you read her posts, even thinks she knows better than Bush' team of professional liars what excuses should be made to justify Bush's criminal behavior. Read through all of the posts for a good laugh.

It's a simple case of arrogant ignorance.

Unfortunately the last time the United States was respected as a world leader was just prior to its achieving independence and that was because it was part of the very powerful British Empire. Europe has never gotten over that loss in 1776 - 1783 and has whined through 250 years of hopping the experiment will not work. As to the rest of the world, have nots have always diliked those that have. If you doubt that statement just look in the mirror. All you folks do day after day on this blog and others is whine about the "haves". Stop looking at yourselves as victims of anything, take personal responsibility for your own life and move on. The rest of the world will never fully respect the United States unless the United States becomes like the rest of the world and though you may champion that, I sincerely doubt you want to live in a country with less freedoms than we have (best in the world) without economic opportunity etc. Yes you can pick a better aspect from one country and another from a different country and if you could put them all together you could make up a super place to live. However, that is not the real world and that makes the U.S. still the best place to live and work. If it were not, you would be living and working elsewhere.

Have a very Merry Christmas