Trump takes the bait of the race-baiting left

Donald Trump is about to learn the price of taking the bait of the race-baiters of the left.

So, what happened is that John Lewis, a partisan and professional race-baiter, said that he did not feel that Donald Trump’s winning the election of 2016 was in his words, “Legit”.

Well, Trump was having none of this:

Now, based upon the reaction of the leftist media, you would have thought that President-elect Trump donned a Klan uniform and burned a cross on the White House lawn. But, he didn’t. He basically told Lewis to clean up his own backyard, before criticizing him.

President-elect Donald Trump is about to learn a cold, hard lesson in Washington politics, when it comes to race. There are scared cows that you do not tip, and John Lewis is one of them. In fact, half of the Democratic in D.C. won’t be there for his swearing-in.

It is sad really, and it is an example of how bad politics in this century has become.

Others, your mileage may vary:  New York Times, ThinkProgress, Common Dreams, No More Mister Nice Blog, Balloon Juice, Political Insider blog, Lawyers, Guns & Money, TheBlaze, alan.com, Mediaite, New Century Times, BizPac Review, The Daily Caller, The Week, twitchy.com, Talking Points Memo, Politico and NBC News, ThinkProgress, NBC News, Political Insider blog, Politicus USA, alan.com, The Hill, BizPac Review, The Week and twitchy.com, Vox, New Century Times, Talking Points Memo, CBS New York, TheBlaze, Shareblue, CNBC, Politicus USA, Raw Story, Gothamist, The Gateway Pundit, The Daily Caller, Occidental Dissent and Washington Times, Hot Air, NPR, Jamie Dupree and The Ring of Fire Network, New York Times, Mashable, BizPac Review and Occidental Dissent

Liberal Democrats and the Electoral College

I know I have not written in a long while. I just do not have the drive to write about politics, like I used to. I guess I just do not have the stamina like I once did.

However, I have to laugh at the idiotic nonsense that I am seeing on Memeorandum about the electoral college. First up let’s look at the NYT’s call for getting rid of the electoral college:

The Electoral College, which is written into the Constitution, is more than just a vestige of the founding era; it is a living symbol of America’s original sin. When slavery was the law of the land, a direct popular vote would have disadvantaged the Southern states, with their large disenfranchised populations. Counting those men and women as three-fifths of a white person, as the Constitution originally did, gave the slave states more electoral votes.

Today the college, which allocates electors based on each state’s representation in Congress, tips the scales in favor of smaller states; a Wyoming resident’s vote counts 3.6 times as much as a Californian’s. And because almost all states use a winner-take-all system, the election ends up being fought in just a dozen or so “battleground” states, leaving tens of millions of Americans on the sidelines.

There is an elegant solution: The Constitution establishes the existence of electors, but leaves it up to states to tell them how to vote. Eleven states and the District of Columbia, representing 165 electoral votes, have already passed legislation to have their electors vote for the winner of the national popular vote. The agreement, known as the National Popular Vote interstate compact, would take effect once states representing a majority of electoral votes, currently 270, signed on. This would ensure that the national popular-vote winner would become president.

Conservative opponents of a direct vote say it would give an unfair edge to large, heavily Democratic cities and states. But why should the votes of Americans in California or New York count for less than those in Idaho or Texas? A direct popular vote would treat all Americans equally, no matter where they live — including, by the way, Republicans in San Francisco and Democrats in Corpus Christi, whose votes are currently worthless. The system as it now operates does a terrible job of representing the nation’s demographic and geographic diversity. Almost 138 million Americans went to the polls this year, but Mr. Trump secured his Electoral College victory thanks to fewer than 80,000 votes across three states: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

I cannot believe that the NYT actually wrote that with a straight face. Funny, I do not seem to remember anyone complaining about the electoral college when Barack Obama won the election twice or when Bill Clinton won the election twice.

Then, there is this from the NYT:

In Washington, a state where Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont had strong support in the Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton, three of the state’s 12 electoral votes went to Colin L. Powell, the Republican former secretary of state. One more elector voted for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American leader. Another Democratic elector in Hawaii voted for Mr. Sanders.

Two Texas electors voted for different Republican politicians: Gov. John Kasich of Ohio and former Texas congressman Ron Paul.

In addition, three Democratic electors, in Colorado, Maine and Minnesota, initially declined to vote for Mrs. Clinton. Two were replaced by an alternate, and one ended up changing his vote.

Golly gee, you think that it might just be that the majority of Democratic Party voters simply hated Clinton and just saw her as a 1990’s retread and a continuation of establishment Democratic Party politics as usual? Or…Maybe perhaps that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of living under the conditions that the Democrats have created, like stagnate wages, high taxes and a health care system that quite frankly sucks?

Nah, that would actually mean thinking in true reality terms, something that Democrats of today have a problem doing. 🙄

And finally, there is this from this guy here (click the link please…):

Couldn’t post this earlier today because it’s too depressing, but today the Electoral College voted to put the worst president-elect in my memory in charge of the United States.

I expected this, because the Electoral College has become a meaningless rubber stamp, instead of the safeguard against the election of an unqualified president it was intended to be.

I don’t know what to say. This country — and the world — is in for a nightmare world of hurt. We’re witnessing the early days of a disaster.

I mean, it is truly laughable to see liberal Democrats, quite literally losing their ever-loving minds over Donald Trump. I mean to listen to these people; you would think that Trump is going to start rounding people up and sending them to death camps or something. Do these people know that we are a Republic and that there safe guards in place to limit his power and if he attempts to abuse that power, that he could be impeached? Apparently not. 🙄

The Trump Derangement Syndrome era has begun.

Other Bloggers, your mileage may vary: Washington Monthly, Occupy Democrats, Washington Free Beacon, Hot Air, LGBTQ Nation, The Daily Caller, The Guardian, TheBlaze, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, FiveThirtyEight, Jezebel, Morning Consult, Little Green Footballs, Harvard News, Common Dreams, Washington Post, Political Wire, Liberal Values, NPR, Sputnik International, Politico, Business Insider, Vox and CNBC, Independent Journal Review, Los Angeles Times, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Victory Girls Blog, Politico, Outside the Beltway, The Week, The Daily Caller, Townhall.com, MichelleMalkin.com, New York Magazine, The Geller Report, Business Insider and The Point

Some thoughts on Donald Trump’s win

There’s a post title I never thought that I would actually write.

First off, let me say this: I think it was absolutely unprofessional, ungraceful, uncouth and downright spiteful — of Hillary Rodham Clinton to not come out and address her supporters and basically tell them that she was going to lose. 

In fact, I don’t even look for her to call her supporters back to that hotel. But rather, I look for her to do a short press conference giving a concession speech and look for her to disappear off the world stage for a very long time.

I think one of the biggest mistakes that the liberal media made, as well as the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton’s campaign is that they were stupid enough to actually think that the American people were not actually listening to what Donald Trump was saying. But rather focusing on the media sideshow that followed him around. This was a serious miscalculation on the entire left” part.

I believe also that the Democrat Grassroots was suffering from what I like to call Post Obama depression. Basically the Democrat Party counted on the black vote and Latino vote to propel Hillary Clinton into the White House and that simply did not happen this time around and I believe it’s because Black America felt like they had been let down by President Obama and they felt that this black guy did nothing for us; that this white woman sure as hell wasn’t going to do it either. 

Also happen to know that in 2008 a lot of Libertarians and independents and other such type of people, who normally didn’t vote Democrat, did just that; because either they didn’t like John McCain or they had this idea that a black president was a wonderful novelty… that didn’t happen this time.

I think another reason why Clinton lost was just simply the fact that a lot of people saw Clinton as a retread of the 1990s and not to mention the fact that she had alot of scandals following her around and doging her candidacy.

I think the two big things that deep-sixed her candidacy for president, was when she referred to Trump supporters as a basket full of ddeplorable and when James Comey made the announcement that he made about the investigation. Those two things ruined her chances of winning.

Get out and VOTE!

20161108_144426

Hi guys! I really haven’t been able to post here as of late because my dad is in hospital and I’ve been going up to see him. it’s a long story and I’ll share more with you guys later. but I wanted to remind everybody it is your constitutional duty to vote; no matter what the outcome is this is still America. we will survive but I do encourage you get out and vote.

Here is a video of me going to vote. I hope you enjoy it.

https://youtu.be/3gBoXq2sdXQ

 

9 days before the election

I really know that I have just not been writing here as of late. I am really just not into politics, like I was. This election is nothing more than a glorified clown show! I just not sure who is the bigger clown. 

So, I have decided to at least run down what is happening 9 days away from the election.

The rest you can read at Memeorandum.com. I am just not interested in spending that much energy blogging about silly stuff…. These are going to be the longest 9 days…..ever. I don't know smile

This is not going to end well for the Republican Party

Good morning from Detroit.

I am awake very early this morning and I happen to be looking over the headlines here on Memeorandum.

I happen to be reading and looking at these headlines here and I cannot help but think that if, by chance that Donald Trump loses this election; that the Republican Party is going to be totally in a state of shambles for a very, very long time. I mean, even the Wealthy are now looking elsewhere and in a Republican election, that is bad…very bad. I mean, I hate to sound like a “Debbie Downer”, but this really does not look good for the Republicans at all. Because folks, let us just face the facts — There are more wealthy Republicans, than there are grassroots conservatives. The majority of the Conservative Christian Right, is presumably staying home, at least the ones I know.

The reason I say it is not looking good for the Republicans, is that they have totally invested themselves into basically a clown, a showman, an egotistical blowhard — who sues anyone that dare criticizes him. You cannot say, that the Republicans did not try, they did and it was a very valiant effort. But, you would think that they would have selected someone a bit more serious, than who they picked. Ted Cruz was dangerous. But, there were others, Rand Paul, Christie, a few others. Instead we go who we got and now we’re looking at 8 years of a criminal pantsuit.

 

What we’re in now, is nothing new

I know that title sounds a bit odd, but I wanted to share something with you all. The feeling around now, in the paleoconservative circles, is one of utter dread. However, this isn’t anything new. consider something that I read over at TomDispatch.com (H/T UNZ.COM):

The Rise of the Evangelical Right

It wasn’t particularly difficult to portray 1980 as a gloomy time for America. The spike in oil prices in 1979 had sent the U.S. economy into a tailspin and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was propelling the two superpowers into another cycle of Cold War tensions. Iranian radicals were holding 52 U.S. diplomats and citizens hostage in Tehran, which produced a daily (and, thanks to Ted Koppel’s Nightline reports, nightly) humiliation for President Jimmy Carter and his administration.

As the Republican Party’s presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan responded to these developments by continually playing up the image of an America in decline. His grim vision of that American future cemented his ties to an ascendant right wing within the evangelical community. As early as 1971, intellectual historian Paul Boyer pointed out, Reagan claimed that “the day of Armageddon isn’t far off.” He was referring then to turmoil in the Middle East and the pivotal role of Israel there. “Everything is falling into place,” he added. “It can’t be long now.”

Reagan was not exactly an easy sell to the Bible belt. Divorced and anything but a devoted churchgoer, he was closely associated in the public mind with that Sodom of the West Coast, Hollywood. In the 1980 election, he was also up against Jimmy Carter, a born-again Christian who openly discussed his faith.

Admittedly, Reagan benefited from the endorsement of the Moral Majority, founded by Reverend Jerry Falwell in 1979, and he began playing directly to the religious crowd by establishing a new tradition of inserting “God bless America” into his speeches. But it was those repeated references to Armageddon that cemented his relationship with the religious right. Apocalyptic thinking is central to the worldview of evangelicals. Indeed, it’s what principally distinguishes them from mainstream Christians. “The one thing that affects how they live their daily lives,” writes historian of religion Matthew Avery Sutton, “is that they believe we are moving towards the End Times, the rise of the Antichrist, towards a great tribulation and a horrific human holocaust.”

The mainstream media was shocked that Reagan then brought such doomsday rhetoric into the Oval Office. “It is hard to believe that the President actually allows Armageddon ideology to shape his policies toward the Soviet Union,” the New York Times editorialized just before the 1984 election. “Yet it was he who first portrayed the Russians as satanic and who keeps on talking about that final battle.” Reagan easily went on to win a second term. Later, George W. Bush would employ similar apocalyptic references to justify the invasion of Iraq and unqualified support for Israel, and it didn’t prevent him from winning a second term either.

This piece goes on to say how similar Trump is to what happened in the 1980’s with Reagan. So, basically, this is all too familiar. There is a difference however; Reagan was more of a statesman, noble type. Trump is all about his own image and sometimes, that image is terrifying.

I think another difference between Reagan and Trump is this: For one, in Reagan’s day there was no 24 hour news cycle, as there is today. CNN was just getting started and there was no FOX News or MSNBC. For two, things were different in Reagan’s era. He came from the 1940’s. In that era, couples, families; people in general — kept their private lives, just that — private. You never saw Jane Wyman getting on TV in the 1980’s and trashing Ronald Reagan, when he was running for President. Because in those days, people just did not do that. The press was different too, there was a certain moral code that they lived by.

Sadly, that has all changed today. It started around 1989; right around the time that Reagan was leaving office. The fairness doctrine was gone and slowly the media became more and more politicized. Nowadays, gossip and innuendo are more valued over hard factual news. Accusations are more treated as fact, than facts themselves. It is a total and utter bastardizing of the media.

It is very obvious to this writer, that Donald Trump has lost this battle with the media and should step aside and let Mike Pence carry the torch and hopefully, he can win. However, as the steel-eyed realist that I am; I am sorry to say, it does not look good for us, at all.

 

Dems platform change on Abortion could cost them votes from Anti-abortion Democrats

This could be bad for Hillary and the Democrats:

A Democratic Party proposal to amend the party’s platform to include more progressive language around abortion rights has outraged Democrats who oppose abortion, with some saying the issue has cost Hillary Clinton their votes.

The fallout centers around a proposal to repeal long-standing legislation that limits federal funds for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or life-threatening pregnancies — the so-called Hyde Amendment. Some version of this ban has been included in annual federal spending bills since the late 1970s.

The draft platform says Democrats “will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers” and “will continue to oppose — and seek to overturn — federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.”

Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, said the progressive language on the platform is making the party smaller. “This platform’s language just says (to abortion opponents) you are no longer welcome,” she said. “This has been the general message pro-life Democrats are receiving across the country.”

Day said ever since the Democratic National Committee released its 2016 platform draft July 1, she has gotten calls from Democrats that oppose abortion and say the language is keeping them from voting for Clinton.

Carol Crossed, 72, a retired elementary school professor from Rochester, N.Y., is one of those Democrats.“

They are pro-choice because they don’t want to be infringing their opinion on others,” she said. “Now their platform says if you don’t like abortions, too bad — you are going to pay for it anyway.”  – Source: USA Today Anti-abortion Dems outraged by platform change

You have to understand something here; not all Democrats are pro-choice. There are some Christians, who are very devout to their Church. But, because of their background, they are committed Democrats. I know, I used to be one of those kind of people. So, I see where these people are coming from. I mean, these people are put into a very tough position; they are horrified by what the Republican Party is running for President. But, that the same time, they are also horrified at what the Democrats are doing with abortion.

This is what happens, when a political party goes very far to the left, of what it was founded as. The Democratic Party was not founded as a “Progressive Party” in the modern day sense. It was founded as a populist alternative to the Republican Party of old; which favored the businesses tycoons of old.

Needless to say, both political parties have changed greatly as whole. The Republican Party now has many factions; you have the movement grassroots faction, you have the elitist faction; it is a sight to behold. The Democrats, on the other hand; have become this “progressive socialist” party, that seems to be anti-white, anti-police and it is, quite frankly, unnerving to people like myself, who have a keen sense of history to watch a political party like that shift that far to the left.

The Democratic Party and it’s followers, have embraced a strain of progressivism that is intolerance of dissenting views and wishes to prosecute anyone who dares to disagree with them; either by discrediting them or by violence. This is nothing more than left-wing fascism. It is the hallmark traits of communism. I have always said, since about 2007; that the distance between the Democratic Party and the Communist Party and Communist themselves, used to be the width of the Grand Canyon. Now, with the infiltration of the progressive socialists in that political party; that distance is more like a small city block.

 

Michael Bloomberg on Presidential run, “Nope, not me!”

A pretty smart move, as it is a little late in the game now.

Via Bloomberg report Michael Bloomberg writes:

My parents taught me about the importance of giving back, and public service has been an important part of my life. After 12 years as mayor of New York City, I know the personal sacrifices that campaigns and elected office require, and I would gladly make them again in order to help the country I love.

I’ve always been drawn to impossible challenges, and none today is greater or more important than ending the partisan war in Washington and making government work for the American people — not lobbyists and campaign donors. Bringing about this change will require electing leaders who are more focused on getting results than winning re-election, who have experience building small businesses and creating jobs, who know how to balance budgets and manage large organizations, who aren’t beholden to special interests — and who are honest with the public at every turn. I’m flattered that some think I could provide this kind of leadership.

But when I look at the data, it’s clear to me that if I entered the race, I could not win. I believe I could win a number of diverse states — but not enough to win the 270 Electoral College votes necessary to win the presidency.

In a three-way race, it’s unlikely any candidate would win a majority of electoral votes, and then the power to choose the president would be taken out of the hands of the American people and thrown to Congress. The fact is, even if I were to receive the most popular votes and the most electoral votes, victory would be highly unlikely, because most members of Congress would vote for their party’s nominee. Party loyalists in Congress — not the American people or the Electoral College — would determine the next president.

A smart move on his part, it is a bit late in the race now to try to start a campaign. This is why Bloomberg is as wealthy as he is; because he is a smart cookie. Bloomberg might be a Democrat, but he is not an idiot. I would say that he might end up a Vice President; but Bloomberg does not strike me as the type to be a second banana. So, I am thinking he will bide his type, until the next election. Because, if Trump is elected, and his Presidency is a huge flop, Bloomberg can run as a Savior-type.

Just my 2 cents.

Related:

Others: CNBC, CANNONFIRE, FiveThirtyEight, Grist, Balloon Juice, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, EveryJoe, The Moderate Voice, Hit & Run, Guardian, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Washington Post, Towleroad, Politico, Advocate, Business Insider, Mediaite, The Gateway Pundit, Outside the Beltway, Gothamist, Yahoo Politics, The Right Scoop, The Atlantic, RedState, Talking Points Memo, Vox, Boing Boing, The Week, Independent Journal Review, NPR, New York Magazine, Washington Times, Mashable, Mother Jones, The Daily Caller and Deadline, more at Mediagazer », No More Mister Nice Blog, Washington Post, Weasel Zippers, Lawyers, Guns & Money, Business Insider, The Atlantic and Political Wire, Business Insider, addictinginfo.org

 

 

A brutal take down of the so-called “Conservative Movement”

This is rough, tough, and brutal. I am in agreement with Vox Day on this one, he calls it “Devastating. Absolutely devastating” and he is very much correct. Yes, I know, I have had disagreements with Vox Day in the past. But, on this, he is spot on. (I cannot seem to locate the posts, I may have pulled them.)

This article by a John Kludge over at ricochet basically sums up my feelings as well:

Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.

First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.

It is this part here that really sticks out:

Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.

The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?

And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I don’t see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in America’s interests instead of the rest of the world’s interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.

Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America’s interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives. Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like “Islam is the religion of peace,” or “Our war is not with Islam.” Uh, sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.

This is what you would call a political smack down and it is about time someone said it. This here too, is something that I high agree with:

Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition. This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity.

I put in bold, underlined and turned that quote red to make a point. This above is what happened to the Conservative movement. It started after Ronald Reagan left office and got really crazy after the election and ultimate defeat of George H.W. Bush. After that, Conservationism went straight loony after that. Conservatives have no one to blame, but themselves. They put in a President, who went soft on taxes, and whom proceeded to usher in the “new world order.” and the Reaganites; which consisted of Fundamentalist Christians, like myself — went running for the hills. They knew then, that they had been duped.

Now, this many years later; along comes Trump and he dares to challenge those in the ivory towers that have created what we have now —- and the vultures are out for blood. They know that the current existing state of affairs in Washington D.C. is being threatened and they are doing everything they can to stop Donald Trump.

The question is, can Donald Trump fight them effectively enough to win the nomination?