Internet Articles (2015)
uring the Campaign of 2000 Vice President Al Gore predicted that the race for the White House would hinge on one battleground StateFlorida. According to Gore in a conversation with his aides, Florida would be the battleground State that would decide the election. In fact, he was so sure of it that he spent more time in Florida, and on the eve of the election, that's where Gore was. The battleground States in the Election of 2000 were Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin due to a strong showing by third party candidate Pat Buchanan. Missouri was voting for a dead Governor, Mel Carnahan in an attempt to wrest control of the US Senate from the Republicans. Carnahan [D] died in a plane crash three weeks before the election while campaigning against sitting US Senator John Ashcroft [R] ). State law prohibited removing a dead candidate's name from the ballotwhich also meant it was too late to add a replacement candidate. Lt. Gov. Roger Wilson (who had the shortest tenure as governor of Missouri) promised to place Carnahan's widow in the US Senate if the dead governor won against Ashcroft.
This was one of those rare cases when neither candidate on the ballot in Missouri won the Senate seat held by Ashcroft. While there's no provision that prevents a dead person from running for office, when voters choose to vote for a deceased person only because Party officials couldn't remove his name from the ballot, those voters have surrendered their right to pick those who will represent them. In Missouri in 2000, the widow of the challenger was awarded the seat simply because she was a Democrat even though not a single voter voted for her.
Missouri law does not bequeath the hereditary passing of an office from a non-incumbent candidate who died three weeks before the election to his wife like a political inheritance. If you recall, just before Sen. Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy [D-MA] died from an inoperable brain tumor on Aug. 25, 2009 he tried to change Massachusetts law so Gov. Deval Patrick could appoint his widow, Vicki Kennedy, to complete Kennedy's term in office. Five years earlier, had Sen. John Kerry won the White House, Massachusetts law would have required the governorin that case, a Republican named Mitt Romneyto appoint a Senator to complete Kerry's last three-plus years.
That frightened the Democratically-controlled State so much, they changed the law, requiring a special election to replace any federal legislator who left office before the end of his or her term. Leading the pack to change the law was Kennedy who argued that it was the only equitable way to replace an incumbent who dies, retires, or wins higher office. Allowing governors to arbitrarily appoint replacements, he insisted, deprived the citizens of the right to choose their own legislators. Kennedy was right. The Massachusetts legislature removed the right of the governor to put a cronyor himselfin the US Senate. Ironically, the Democrats in Massachusetts replaced Kennedy with a RepublicanScott Brown, who is now fighting an Obama socialist, Elizabeth Warren, to keep Kennedy's seat. The Brown-Warren Senate fight will be one of those "battleground contests" with ACORN, SEIU, the AFL-CIO, MoveOn.org and a myriad of other community organizers working frantically to register enough invisible people to take Brown's seat out of the GOP column.
There's no verbiage in Missouri law that bans a dead person from competing for political office. But, there is likewise no language that allows a dead person to serve since every State's code specifically bases eligibility to run by where the candidate "lives." In other words, you can't posthumously win elective office. Since deceased people reside in graves, they are ineligible to run for an "above the ground" officeparticularly since they no longer have a constituency to represent except the dearly departed buried in that State or congressional district. That probably explains why Democrats have a such penchant for registering the dead to voteand why, in 2000, that caravans of indigents and nonresident college students willing sell votes they didn't possess for a pint of cheap hooch or a carton of cigarettes were recruited by groups like ACORN, MoveOn.org, the Tides Foundation and, of course, labor union like SEIU and the AFL-CIO to be transported in caravans of buses from voting precinct to precinct to vote newly registered voters who, because of the obvious, needed a surrogate to vote for them. They were either dead or nonexistent.
As the community activists tested the effectiveness of Bill Clinton's stealth vote-theft machinethe National Voter Registration Act of 1993, or as it is more commonly known, the Motor Voter Law, to change the political landscape of suburban America from red to blue by registering three new classifications of voters: [a] nonexistent. people, [b] long dead people and the Democrat's newest constituency[c] illegal aliens. The Democrats and the liberal media had to find a name for the phenomenon that was about to transpirewhen red States suddenly, and without rhyme or reason, became blue States, or at best, purple Stateswithout a single red state voter changing their political pedigree.
The leftwing media decided to call them "battleground States." While the left knew which States would become battleground States based on where ACORN, SEIU and their allied labor unions, and LaRaza and Aztlan hit the streets to find new voters under the Motor Voter Act in order to inflate the voter rosters of the left, the Republicans apparently were cluelessas was the general public. They actually believed there was such a thing as a battleground State where the left and right were fighting for the minds of the voter. I talk to anywhere from 1,000 to 5,000 American voters via email every week (about 97% of them being politically conservative or Tea Party independent). Not one of them on either side of the great political divide are "undecided." They are either planning to vote for Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or they plan to write-in Ron Paul, or they plan to sit out the election and let the fools elect the fools. But they know what they are going to do. Their minds are already made up.
When the honest polls of likely voters show Republicans leading in what the liberal media calls "new battleground States," its because the voters have already made up their minds who they are voting for, or they know they don't plan to vote. When they tell a telephone pollster they are "undecided," what they are really telling the pollster is that what they plan to do, or not do, is none of their businessparticularly if they're Democrats who don't like ObamaChange. That's why the voting electorate is baffled when the left pulls victory out of what logic says should have been a defeat in battleground States that elect conservative candidates. When the exit polls on election day suggest the voters are voting GOP and the results suggest something else, that's when the TV news pundits call the congressional seat, Senatorial seat, or presidential contest in that State "too close to call." People who just voted don't lie about who they voted for. When truly random surveys are taken by reputable polling companies, they are usually accurate to within 5%. The only voters not available to survey are those who voted absentee ballotor those who voted fraudulently. And there are far more fraudulent voters than there are absentee voters.
Scores of journalistsparticularly those in the e.4th estate who are much more curious about news anomalies than their "real news" competitors in the traditional, liberal-controlled print and electronic 4th estateare beginning to see post-election "media corrections" where pre-count exit polling data is being subtly "updated" after the votes are counted to make the predictions more closely dovetail with the tabulated results.
But the one thing they failed to notice until Obama's stellar win in 2008 which TV journalists attributed to millions of newly registered young people whom, the media claimed, came out in droves to vote their new political messiah, was how many registered voters actually voted. In the Election of 2008. Out of 169 million registered voters, only 96,992,000 of them actually voted. But, what was most troubling to those who began examining the election results, the actual number of ballots counted were 132,618,580or about 35,626,580 more votes than voters. The important thing to note about Obama's "new" voters, the black turnout to vote for America's first black president was only 14%. So, if Black America did not come out in droves to vote for Obama, who did?
While this appears not to have awakened too many journalists to the fact that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 was not legislated to protect voter rights, but to provide the union-funded, far left-financed Democratic Party with an apparatus they could use to tilt congressional, Senatorial, gubernatorial seats andeven the White House in their favor.
Before anyone ever heard the term "battleground States," pre-Motor Voter Law politicians, beginning in 1912, used third party candidates financed by the money barons to drain off a sufficient number of votes from their mirror image major party candidate (who were usually favored to win) in order to throw the election to the candidate backed by the princes of industry and the barons of banking.
Moderate Reform Party candidate Ross Perot was one of them. He drained 19% of the Reagan Democrat vote from President George HW Bush. The media said Bush-41 lost because he promised the voters he would not increase taxespledging, "Read my lips. No new taxes." Bush was hoodwinked by both the Wall Street bankers who financed his first run, and the Democrats into doing what he pledged not to doraise taxes b y promising his broken pledge would not be a 1992 campaign issue. Before Ross Perot entered the race, the polls said Bush-41 would win reelection 55% to 45%, so clearly the voters weren't that upset about Bush-41's pledge not to raise taxes. Yet, he lost in a 42% to 39% upset with the spoiler taking 19%. Had Perot not been in the race, Bush-41 should have won reelection in what appears to be a 58% to 42% race. But would that have actually happened?
On a Friday night in 1997 I was commuting home from work in Washington, DC in a private MARC train car where 18 DC executives enjoyed in their daily commute. I was engaged in a conversation with a fairly high-ranking Justice Department official about the 2000 election. The conversation centered around Texas Gov. George W. Bush telling the media that he was not entertaining any immediate plans to be a candidate for the presidency in 2000. The Justice Dept. official said he felt Bush would not run, based on his statement the media. I argued that he would.
When the Justice official disembarked at his stop a few minutes later, the passenger across the aisle from me, whom I thought had been sleeping the whole time because his eyes were covered by an expensive homberg hat, pushed his hat back off his eyes and sat up, asking me who I was and what I did in "The District." When I answered him, he told me his first name and said, "You're right. Bush will run. And, he will win." We talked about the power of the princes of industry and the barons of banking and patrons of political patronage. Then after getting my assurances that anything he said in our conversation was "off the record for your newspaper," he said, "I'm telling you this but you can't use, or allude to, my name in your website." (I learned his name and who he was from the Justice Dept. official one evening the following week when my slumbering neighbor from across the aisle was not a MARC passenger. I never revealed to him why I was curious. I simply said I was. He told me. Why was I curious? Because I wanted to learn if he was someone who would, by his position, know what he claimed to know.
He told me that in the summer of 1992 (I am deliberately obfuscating when this event took place since you don't need to know and it won't help you figure out who he was, or who the other unnamed person in this story may have been). He was attending a black tie function at the White House. He was embarrassingly in the wrong place at the wrong time and could not extricate himself without being discovered as he inadvertently overheard a very private conversation he was not supposed to hear. President George HW Bush was quietly conversing with a very powerful prince of industry, and was laying out a strategy he planned to use a few weeks before the Election to end the White House aspirations of Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. As he spoke, the guest purportedly placed his hand on Bush-41's shoulder and said, "George, don't run too hard. It's not going to be your night." The president apparently understood the meaning of the words, and accepted the statement without an argument. Instead, he reportedly began negotiating: "I'd like my son to be president in 1996." Smiling, his hand still on Bush's shoulder, the guest said: "If Gov. Clinton is as good as I've been led to believe he is, we're going to give him two terms." The negotiations, my neighbor across the aisle on the MARC train said, then flipped to the Election of 2000and ended with a handshake.
That weekend in 1997, on my old AOL subdomain website that you couldn't find with a flashlight and a road map, I posted the Election Results for the Election of 2000. Winners: PresidentGeorge W. Bush; Vice Presidenteither Jim Baker or Dick Cheney. Losers: President Al Gore, Jr; Vice PresidentJoe Lieberman. Surprisingly, where usually only a couple hundred people a week read my old subdomain site in 1997, I received about a thousand replies to that one article, with those email writers telling me who they wanted to run and, of course, who they wanted to win. To each, I wrote back to say that I was not presenting a wish list for 2000, I was announcing the winners of the electionthree years early.
I have no idea how many of those who read "my prediction" saved it to rub my nose in it when it turned out, they thought, that I was wrong. A couple of my friends on the Hill did. When the Supreme Court ruled, affirming the Bush-Cheney victory over Gore-Lieberman, I received about two dozen calls or emails asking me how I did it. I never told them. This is the first time I have revealed this story on my website. I did this now because the American people need to understand how much influence the political puppet-masters have had in making the candidates-on-a-string dance to the tune of the money marionettes since 1912. Because, if you want to be a player but aren't willing to dance, you don't get to play. I know of only four presidential candidates since 1964one Democrat and three Republicanswho did not agree to dance. The Democrat was Lyndon Baines Johnson. The Republicans were George Wilcken Romney, Ronald Wilson Reagan and Willard Mitt Romney. (George Romney, who Theodore White said was too honest to be President, lost the 1968 GOP primary to Richard Nixon. Nixon was willing to dance. The man who was too honest to win the presidency lost to the man who left the White House shouting, "I am not a crook! I am not a crook!")
Politics is constantly evolving because the money merchants of the princes of industry can no longer afford to finance both the winners and the losers. When the princes of industry donate a billion dollars to one candidate, it takes a lot of taxpayer dollars in the quid pro quo pipeline to repay those donations. Major donors don't contribute out of patriotism. They donate because they expect access to high ranking officials, and they expect a handsome return for their donations. When they finance presidential as well as congressional and senatorial candidates on both sides of the aisle with ever-increasing amounts of money as political races become more and more expense, the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business are now looking for ways to cut their campaign expenses. Today it's becoming easierand much cheaperto buy the voters than the politicians.
But don't get me wrong. The politician is charged the cost of the win from the millions he gets from the corporate donors. But, it's the community organizers who are now getting rich at the expense of the taxpayers because they are supplying a steady stream of new Motor Voter votersmost of which they have to buy. In 2008, to thank ACORN for their "get-out-the-vote" efforts, then Sen. Barack Obama included a $6 billion earmark in the 2009 budget bill (voted on in October, 2008) for ACORN's "community activism." In 2010, the Democratic Super Majority in the 112th Congress put up a $1.2 trillion budget that contained over 6,600 individual earmarks (taxpayer gifts to the campaign contributors that totaled $8 billion). Polticians are repaying major campaign donors with your money. Earmarks are taxpayer-funded paybacks to donors for millions in political contributions that keep that politician in office. When the GOP revealed the amount of the earmarks in the above-mentioned budget bill, it never came up for a votenor has any budget in almost four years. The last budget approved by Congress and signed into law was signed by President George W. Bush. The current occupant of the Oval Office, who pledged the most transparent administration in the history of the United States, has been the most opaque.
In 2008, Obama purchased 35,626,580 fraudulent votes to buy the White House. At $5 per vote (the going ACORN rate at the time) it appears Obama may have paid roughly $178,132,900.00 for the votes he needed to beat Sen. John McCain's 59,934,814 votes. Let's do the math since leftwing talking heads, poophahing claims by conservatives that Obama vote theft stole the election, admitted while there may have been a few fraudulent votes on both sides, no candidate could ever steal enough votes to win the election.
According to the Federal Election Commission's 2008 election statistics, which were posted on both the FEC website and on the White House website on Nov. 28, 2009, there were 169 million registered voters in the United States when the votes were cast in the Election of 2008. According to the FEC report, 96,992,000 voters, or 56.8% of those registered to vote, cast ballots for the office of President.
Obama, the report noted, received 69,456,897 votes. McCain, as noted, received 59,934,814 votes. Without looking at the third party candidate votes, we already have 32,399,711 more votes than votersand we haven't counted any of the third party candidate votes yet. Like Obama's first amateurish forged Certificate of Live Birth that was posted on Candidate Obama's website in July, 2008, the official FEC Election Results report that showed the vote anomaly vanished from both government websites sometime around Dec. 10, 2009 after I reported those statistics on my website on Nov. 28, 2009. In that article, I noted that the number of ballots counted totaled 132,618,580. When 96,992,000 people vote there should be 96,992,000 ballots in the ballot boxes, not 132,618,580. So regardless how independent voters voted, when only 96.992 million legal voters cast ballots, there should only be 96.992 million ballots to count. How do we get 35 million too many votes?
Easy. It's called the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, or "Motor Voter." The proverbial election sleight of hand that lets ineligible voters vote even though their voter registration form is rejected for the incorrect information in it. How is it done?
Motor Voter provides that mechanism through same day registration and voting by absentee ballot. It allows the newly registered voters to fill out their voter registration form and complete an absentee ballot at the same time. In fact, as the election comes down to the wire, most States offer last-minute same day registering and votingwhich means no official anywhere checks to protect the integrity of the single most important right possessed by the American peoplethe right to vote in an honest election. When arguments of vote fraud surface, election officials everywhere simply shrug and say they will deal with the fraud issues after the election. Theoretically there must be time for the local election authorities to check and verify the data on the voter registration application before anything happens to the ballot. However, since the vote is sacrosanct, the registration forms go in one direction and the absentee ballotassumed to be legitimategoes in another. The absentee or early ballots, by law, would be placed in an official "blue bag" (even if its not blue) that is locked with a numbered security seal and stored until the votes are counted on Election Day. The registration form would be verified and the data stored in the voter registry. If the registration form proved to be a flawed, it would be removed from the system. The absentee ballot, which had already been stored with other theoretically legitimate absentee ballots, is immune from destruction since no one knew which ballot was associated with the fraudulent registration.
When you see heavy voter registration by groups like ACORN, MoveOn.org, the AFL-CIO, SEIU and other labor unions and leftwing community activists, you have just identified what will be called a "Battleground State" in the upcoming election. California birther lawyer Orly Taitz reported on Geraldo Rivera's nationally syndicated radio program on KABC that the Pew Research estimates, this year alone, there are already some 24 million new invalid voter registrations. Taitz is working with a former NATO relational database specialist in California who has identified hundreds of thousands of invalid voter registrations in California. Taitz said that just from wrong birth dates alone "...we have 723,620 invalid voter registrations and suspicious voter registrations in California alone." Employees in the Registrar's office, according to Taitz, admitted, in writing, that when registrations are missing birth dates, registrars assign bogus birth dates. In addition to missing birth dates, over 500,000 registrations are invalid because they fail to record the voter's country of origin. There are thousands of registrations which indicate the voterswho are still votingare between 150 and 200 years of age.
Don't be surprised to see hotly disputed "battleground blue" turf wars being waged with absentee ballots from disqualified voters attempting to take California's red 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, 25th, 40th, 41st, 42nd, 44th, 45th, 46th, 48th, 49th, 50th, and 52nd Congressional Districtswith special attention being paid to Darrell Issa's 49th congressional district seat, Dan Lundgren's 3rd district seat, Dana Rohrabacher's 46th district seat, Brian Bilbay's 50th district seat, and Duncan Hunter's 52nd district seat. The left will call Republican congressional seats in California "battleground districts" by pretending that conservative California voters in those districts are afraid that Republicans might overturn Obamacare when in fact illegal aliens will be voting absentee in those districts hoping to steal at least 9 of the 18 GOP congressional seats in California..
In truth, Democrats are becoming increasingly afraid that Obama will not be able to steal enough votes this time around to keep from being evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. To protect Obamacare and keep Obama from being impeached and removed from office before noon on Jan. 20, 2013, the Democrats need to regain control of the House of Representatives and also protect their majority in the US Senate. The GOP needs to take 17 seats to have an "impeachable" Senate which, of course, probably is not going to happen. To do so assumes the GOP loses no seats and takes every Democratic Senate seat up for grabsincluding Claire McCaskell's [D-MO].
Missouri alone might screw up that long shot with Senate Republican's telling GOP Congressman Todd Akin [2nd District] who is the GOP Senate nominee, that the Republican Party will not support him, and for him to get out of the race. Akin, who made a stupid comment on Aug. 18 when he said that "...women who are legitimately raped can't get pregnant because their bodies shut down that process" is now hanging on to a razor-thin 1 point lead over incumbent Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill whom the Democrats wanted to jettison themselves as not re-electable. If McCaskill is reelected it will happen the way Jean Carnahan won John Ashcroft's Senate seat in 2000caravan voters scrambling to vote Missouri's dead from precinct to precinct in the extra 45 minutes the Democrats bought to unseat Ashcroft by voting for the deceased former governor Mel Carnahan. It's ironic, but nevertheless criminal, that in 2000 the Democrats used dead voters to vote for a dead governor.
The unions were pushing hard to take Congress back for the Democrats in 2000. They campaigned hard for Mel Carnahan who was dead. If Carnahan was elected, the only living candidate for the seat would be denied his victory, and interim Gov. Roger B. Wilson would appoint Carnahan to fill Ashcroft's seat. Missouri was a battleground State in 2000 not because Mel Carnahan died, but because the left was determined to use Bill Clinton's Motor Voter Law to regain control of the US Senate by registering those who were ineligible to vote, and using caravan voters to vote a dead man into office. Had the polls in Missouri closed at 7 p.m. John Ashcroft, who was leading Mel Carnahan at the time, would have spent the next four years as a US Senator and not as the US Attorney General. And, Ashcroft was a fair better Senator than Attorney General.
While all of the reliable polls showed Ashcroft leading the dead man, the liberal media played the "nobody knows how the sympathy vote will play out" melody to convince the unconvinced that the sympathy vote would win at the end of the day. The melody hit a sour note. Ashcroft was still leading. Judge Evelyn Baker agreed to a request from Robin Carnahan, Jean Carnahan's daughter to keep the polls open until 10 pm (instead of 7 p.m.) because, the daughter said, there were too many people still trying to vote that would be denied that right if the polls didn't stay open. A State appellate court judge reversed Baker's order because you can't change the election rules after the votes were cast, and ordered the polls closed at 7:45 p.m. The extra 45 minutes Robin Carnahan got from Baker gave the Democrats time to caravan enough surrogate voters to St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield and Independence to vote for the dead governor and put Robin Carnahan's mama in the US Senate for two years.
Vice President Al Gore sent his lawyers to the appellate judge, asking him to reverse his own decision. Also appealing for a delay was State Senator William Lace Clay, a Democrat trying to win his father's congressional seat. When the votes were finally tallied, Mel Carnahan edged out John Ashcroft and Clay won his father's seat. Since Clay won with 73% of the vote, one wonder's why he asked to keep the polls open. Al Gore, who apparently needed the extra three hours to catch up, .failed to edge out George W. Bush.
It was rumored after the election that Robin Carnahan and female African American Judge Evelyn Baker were having an affair, suggesting the judge's decision to keep the polls open until 10 PM may not have been done in the interest of a fair election but possibly as a favor for a very close friend. The Democrats called Missouri a battleground State in 2000, but as far as the presidential race was concerned, it wasn'texcept for the Senate race. George W. Bush won 1,189,924 votes vs. Gore's 1,111,138 votes. Gore, like Robin Carnahan, tried to keep the polls open until 10 p.m. so he could bus in enough voters to upset Bush and steal Missouri's 11 electoral votes. If that had happened, Missouri, not Florida, would have been the battleground State that decided the Election of 2000. (In 2004 St. Louis prosecutors tried to remove Baker from hearing as many as 150 criminal cases because of the lenient sentences she meted to serious felons. Baker's held the view that "treatment" was cheaper than incarceration, and that because Missouri prisons were already overcrowded, lengthy sentences for felons only exacerbated overcrowding.)
Bush lost Wisconsin in 2000 by 6,099 votes. Pat Buchanan won 11,256 votemore than enough in a two-man for Bush to have easily won Wisconsin. Gore took Wisconsin's 11 electoral votes. Had Buchanan not been in the race, Bush would have won Wisconsin by a margin of 5,156 votes. Bush lost Iowa by 4,949 votes. Buchanan took 22,256 votes there. It's clear these were conservative votes, which means ecowacko Al Gore would not have received them in a two man race. Without Buchanan, Bush would likely have had another 17,307 votes, adding Iowa's 7 electoral votes.
Had Gore been allowed to continue changing the election rules in Florida in 2000 (banned by 3 USC § 5 of the Electoral Count Act of 1887) without interference from the US Supreme Court, we would have had a "white" ObamaAl Gore, Jr.in the White House eight years earlier. The United States would have been bankrupt long before Obama brought his brand of community activism to Washington. It's very likely, had Gore been elected, he would have served only one term, being replaced by Bush-43 in 2004, with Obama never getting the shot at the gold ring.
The only good thing in all that bad news is that, after Gore, it would be at least 50 years before another Democrat was electedunless the American people were not smart enough to demand the repeal the National Voter Registration Law of 1993 and demand that every voter be required by federal law, to show a State-issued photo driver's license or a DMV photo ID for non-drivers.
The American people need to wake up to what's happening to America, and what's the pedigree of those at the helm of the USS United States..They proudly call themselves social progressives like that's something good. Strip off the politically-correct rhetoric and those "new" Democrats from the Clinton Era are a mixture of old 20th century Roosevelt communists and new 21st century Obama Islamofascists. How did we let it happen? Because the first time the left introduced us to the concept of "battleground States," none of us asked: [a] what's a battleground State, and [b] how do you know my State is one? When you talk to enough people over the Internet about who they're voting forbecause, by now, everyone I've spoken with seems to knowcompute your own private political poll and you should have a pretty good idea, in a completely honest election, who's going to win and who's going to lose based on what real voters are planning to do. If the results on Election Day are radically different from what you learned through email dialogues with voters all over the country, you and your friends may discovered that even though you didn't know it when you voted, you were all in a battleground State..
So once again, how do you know when your State has become a Battleground State? When someone wearing a union button or claiming to be a community organizer, or someone representing themselves as an advocate who has pledged to protect your right to vote. They will all be carrying a sheaf of voter registration forms and absentee ballots. And, if you talk to them long enough, they will likely offer you five bucks for each vote you cast.