Archive for Liar

“Some Advisor” Watch

Obama’s denial knowing Jonathan Gruber as just “some advisor who was never on our staff” triggered a memory of another such evasion. But I couldn’t place it. Pelosi? Reid? Kerry? I needn’t have thought so hard.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood…

Just as the facts proved otherwise with Ayers, so do they too with Gruber:

Enjoy these cuts while you can, boys and girls—they won’t be around for long:

The University of Rhode Island (URI) removed a video of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber discussing how he exploited the American people.

URI removed a video of Gruber’s speech at an Oct. 30, 2012 Honors Colloquium in which the Obamacare consultant discussed how some details of Obamacare’s design were concealed from the American public.

“It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” Gruber said.

“URI has deleted an embarrassing Gruber video while leaving a broken embed on their site – a real ‘stupid American voter’ move,” American Commitment’s Phil Kerpen, who flagged the video’s removal, told The Daily Caller. “I hope that URI will be shamed into reposting the video as Penn was last week when they did the same thing.”

The University of Pennsylvania previously removed the first Gruber video, in which Gruber discussed the “stupidity of the American voter,” but later re-posted it under public pressure. Three of the four executive team members of the health care analysis group Picwell, which Gruber works for, have official positions at the University of Pennsylvania.

If it weren’t a “dog whistle” word, I’d call this a whitewash.

Comments

Gruber: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

Unless you prefer the title “Some Advisor Watch”

“We’ll work to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year,” Obama told an audience on Sept. 6, 2008. He made a similar claim at least 18 more times stump speeches during the campaign.

But that was news at the time to Gruber, who later advised the Obama administration on the creation of Obamacare and is now at the center of a firestorm for candid remarks he made about how the administration duped the American public in order to get the health law passed.

“I know zero credible evidence to support that conclusion,” Gruber told the non-partisan FactCheck.org in Feb. 2008….

Go ahead, Aidan, tell us what you think of that:

Yeah, we agree.

“At the end of the day, the only way to control health-care costs in America is to deny Americans health care they want,” Gruber said.

He was seemingly referring to what has been dubbed the Cadillac tax, which is a 40-percent excise tax on the most expensive health insurance plans. Some economists, including Gruber, believe that the Cadillac tax will shore up inefficiencies in the health-care system and “bend the cost curve,” which will save money in the long term.

“Basically, we just don’t know. We just have no clue what it’s going to do,” Gruber added.

But on the campaign trail, Obama adopted the easier-to-understand statement that the average family would save $2,500 per year on their insurance premiums.

In 2008, one of those advisers, Harvard University’s David Cutler, explained to The New York Times that “what we’re trying to do is find a way to talk to people in a way they understand.”

By lying to their faces. Repeatedly.

None of this is a surprise. We all knew this at the time. I would say that the American people were as dumb as Gruber and Obama took them for, but the polls don’t support that. ObamaCare has been unpopular for years. The dummies were the Democrats in Congress who passed it.

But even that’s not true. If we knew they were lying, how could they not know? The fix was in, and everyone was in on it. That’s how they operate. Now that Congress is not so amenable, Obama is just doing away with it altogether.

Comments

Obama Only Just Discovers His Imbecility

Speaking of stealing from Rush (as I was below), here’s his Limbaugh Theorem in the flesh:

RUSH: … I get an e-mail from a friend of mine in Hawaii.

He said, “I don’t believe what I just saw.”

So I wrote back, “What did you just see?”

“I just saw the Limbaugh Theorem wide open! Obama’s in Brisbane, Australia; he said he just found out that day about Gruber and what he’s been saying about Obamacare, and he’s livid. He’s fit to be tied about it! He’s gonna get to the bottom of it, and he didn’t know who Gruber was other than he was some sort of advisor.”

I said, “This is great. Now people are calling me or sending me e-mails saying that they are seeing examples of the Limbaugh Theorem.”

RUSH: (laughing) This is unbelievable. This little sound bite of 23 seconds may be more jam-packed with lies than any 23-second presidential sound bite I’ve ever played for you. “I did not. I just heard about this just now. I get well briefed. I just heard about this. The fact that some advisor who never worked on our staff…” He was in meetings with Obama! Gruber has been bragging about them!

Now, seriously, what are we to do about this? This is sociopathic. There is something terribly wrong here.

It is sociopathic. That’s just the word.

What took us so long to notice?

RUSH: This is not the first time that Obama has said, “I just found out about this! I just found out when you did. I’m livid. I can’t believe this. We’re gonna get to the bottom of this.” We have a montage, March 2009 through November 2014.

Here’s Obama talking about all the various scandals he’s faced, and they’re not identified. I could go through and tell you after the bite what each one’s about, but it doesn’t matter. What you heard him say in Brisbane, “I didn’t know about this! I just heard about this! I’m as mad about this as you are. I’m gonna get to the bottom of this,” blah, blah. We’ve got countless examples. Here we go…

OBAMA, GRUBER, 11/17/14: Uhhh, I just heard about this… [S]ome advisor who never worked on our staff, uhh, expressed an opinion that, uhh, I completely disagree with …

OBAMA, IRS SCANDAL, 05/13/13: I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this.

OBAMA, IRS SCANDAL, 05/15/13: Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it.

OBAMA, OBAMACARE ROLLOUT, 10/21/13: Nobody’s madder than me!

OBAMA, FAST & FURIOUS, 10/14/11: I heard on the news about this.

OBAMA, FAST & FURIOUS, 10/18/11: It’s very upsetting to me, that somebody showed such bad judgment.

OBAMA, SECRET SERVICE SCANDAL, 04/15/12: If it turns out some of the allegations that have been made in the press are confirmed, then of course I’ll be angry.

OBAMA, IRS SCANDAL, 05/13/13: I’ve got no patience with it! I will not tolerate it!

OBAMA BP GULF OIL DISASTER, 06/03/10: I am furious at this entire situation.

OBAMA IRS SCANDAL, 05/15/13: We’re going to hold the responsible parties accountable.

OBAMA, IRS SCANDAL, 05/16/13: (outdoor/rain noise) I certainly did not know anything about the IG Report before the IG Report had been leaked through the press.

OBAMA, IRS SCANDAL, 05/16/13: (outdoor/rain noise) The minute I found out about it, then my main focus is making sure that we get the thing fixed.

OBAMA, WALL STREET BONUSES, 03/18/09: (aircraft noise) People are right to be angry. I’m angry!

OBAMA, AIR FORCE ONE BUZZING MANHATTAN, 04/28/09: (camera clicks) It was something, uhh, we found out, uhh, about along with all of you.

OBAMA, VA SCANDAL, 05/21/2014: I will not stand for it, not as commander-in-chief! None of us should. It is dishonorable, it is disgraceful, and I will not tolerate it. Period.

What have we done? What have we done?

Comments (1)

He Said What???

Our first post on Gruber-gate was a week ago this morning. Our source was a Daily Caller story from a day earlier.

But look who just found out:

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS: At your Burma townhall a couple of days ago, you tried to inspire young leaders by saying, “governments need to be held accountable, need to be responsive to the people.” I wonder how you square that with your former adviser, Jonathan Gruber claiming you were not transparent about the health law because in his words the American people, the voters are stupid. Did you mislead Americans about the taxes, about keeping your plan in order to get the bill passed?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, I did not. I just heard about this.

To be fair to the president, he’s been in Asia. It’s hard to get news over there. Wait’ll he finds out NBC canceled Bad Judge!

Let’s bring the most powerful man in the world up to date, shall we? The brains behind ObamaCare (if you’ll pardon the oxymoron) has been telling anyone who’ll listen (in six different videos so far) what a con the bill was—The Sting on one-sixth of the nation’s economy. Why, he even told you, sir, right in the Oval Office. (Though it came as no surprise, I’m sure.) Your pals in the MSM ignored the story for a couple of days, but even their wall of silence was not leakproof.

Of course, anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid already knew what Gruber said was true. Or is a liar:

The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters, is no reflection on the actual process that was run. We had a year-long debate, Ed. I mean, go back and look at your stories. The one thing we can’t is that we did not have a lengthy debate about health care in the United States of America. Or that it was not adequately covered. I would just advise — every press outlet here, go back and pull up every clip, every story, and I think it will — it’s fair to say there was not a provision in the health care law that was not extensively debated and was fully transparent. Now, there were folks who disagreed with some of the various positions. It was a tough debate.

Eww…I feel dirty.

Comments (3)

Omertà

The code of silence among health care gangsters:

Speaking at the American Academy of Actuaries on Thursday, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius briefly addressed Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber’s controversial comments about how Obamacare got passed.

“You can talk to Dr. Gruber about what he said, but I don’t have a comment about his comments. Anything else,” she said.

Do all the president’s women take the Fifth? The cabinet secretary in charge of this pile of dog poo (Constitutional pile of dog poo) has nothing to say when Jonny “The Bull” Gruber sings like a canary? What does she think we are, stupid?

Better to think someone stupid than to be stupid:

At her weekly press briefing, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters she didn’t know who Jonathan Gruber was and “he didn’t help write” the Obamacare legislation.

However, at a 2009 press conference, Pelosi cited Gruber’s analysis.

Thusly:

Given Gruber’s prominence in the field of health care policymaking, it would be odd if Pelosi had never heard of him. Certainly her staff did — on Dec. 1, 2009, they issued a news release titled “Health Insurance Reform Mythbuster – ‘Health Reform And Insurance Premiums’ ” that cites Gruber by name seven times. (It’s no longer on Pelosi’s site but is archived here.)

Still, the fact that her aides knew about Gruber isn’t a smoking gun that she did. The smoking gun instead comes from video of a news conference she held on Nov. 5, 2009. During that news conference, she addressed differences between the bill she was backing and one offered by Republicans:

“I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo, versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even from now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.”

And then there’s this:

President Obama personally crafted a major Obamacare deception with Jonathan Gruber at one of Gruber’s numerous White House meetings, according to a 2012 Gruber interview with PBS.

“And Obama was like, ‘Well, you know’ — I mean, he is really a realistic guy. He is like, ‘Look, I can’t just do this.’ He said: ‘It is just not going to happen politically. The bill will not pass. How do we manage to get there through phases and other things?’ And we talked about it. And he was just very interested in that topic,” Gruber continued.

“Once again, that ultimately became the genesis of what is called the Cadillac tax in the health-care bill, which I think is one of the most important and bravest parts of the health care law and doesn’t get nearly enough credit,” Gruber added.

Pelosi, Sebelius, Gruber, Obama…do you get the feeling that they’re trying to keep things from us?

Ditto Lois Lerner and that worm, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen?

And Eric Holder? And Susan Rice? And Hillary Clinton and John Kerry? Are they not all proven liars?

Are we not in some bizarre-o-world Nixon White House where the liars, creeps, and villains are not charged with crimes, but rather hailed as heroes?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and most definitely yes.

Comments

With Apologies to All Horses and Their Derrieres

There can only be one Chief Executive Horse’s Ass:

I’m Barack Horsesass Obama, and I approve this message…messages.

Comments

Epiphany

Who does Jonathan Gruber think is stupid – the Conservatives who never believed a word of ObamaCare nonsense or the NPR/NY Times/Boston Glob crowd who licked up every syllable and accused those who didn’t believe in it of racism? When he says that the American voter is stupid, he means them. Because the Limbaugh crowd and the Wall Street Journal crowd and the Libertarians and Fox News and the small business community and the Tea Party all knew that he, Obama, Reid and Pelosi lied about this every time they spoke. It was the Charlie Rose crowd, the Terry Gross crowd, the earnest little twits who gobbled this nonsense up with a spoon. No wonder the MSM isn’t covering any of this. It’s embarrassing.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

See No Evil, Hear No Evil

So, now that all hell has broken loose with Jonathan Gruber’s disgraceful, arrogant, elitist remarks about how ObamaCare was passed as the Law of the Land only by way of lies, obfuscations, and evasions…sorry, what did you say?

All hell hasn’t broken loose? The mainstream media are not touching it?

Not CNN? Nope.

The New York Times? Nope.

NPR? Nope.

USA Today? Nope.

NBC, CBS, ABC? Nope, nope, and nope.

You’ve all seen and heard the remarks. Not only did he call the American people a bunch of dopes, he called ObamaCare supporters a bunch of dopes. They bought it; the rest of us knew they were lying. We all said so at the time. (How dumb must Chief Justice Roberts feel right now? Not half as dumb as he should feel.)

It even turns out that Gruber made a habit out of bragging how smart he was, and how dumb we were.

And not one word in the “respectable” media. (To its immense credit, the Washington Post has plenty.)

I do try to keep hyperbole to a minimum (oxymoronic as that may sound), or at least tongue in cheek, but I do not inhabit the same world as my neighbors anymore. I may not be smarter (or dumber), but I know things they can’t even imagine. The most terrifying of which is that the institution of the press is as corrupt as any medieval pope or Roman emperor (or Massachusetts Speaker of the House). We are just as dumb as they want us—I never said Gruber was wrong.

PS: Gruber did appear on local PBS with liberal lioness, Emily Rooney. You won’t last past the sickening question, trust me, so it won’t take long.

Comments (1)

I Was Wr…Wr…Wro-o-o-on-n-n….

Wrong:

Of the 68,541 unaccompanied illegal alien children who entered the U.S. in fiscal year 2014, none were reported to have the enterovirus, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

CNSNews.com asked, “Just to clarify, you’re saying that none of the unaccompanied minors who have entered the U.S. had the enterovirus?”

“There were none reported to the Office of Refugee Resettlement,” Kenneth Wolfe, spokesman for the Administration of Children and Families for the Department of Health and Human Services, told CNSNews.com in an emailed response.

I said that the enterovirus outbreak was caused by these kids without medical screening being scattered across the country. I said I would stick by that belief until it was proven otherwise.

I’m almost there:

However, evidence buried in peer-reviewed medical journals provides support for the argument enterovirus D-68, or EV-D68, in the United States was a relatively rare disease. The EV-D68 epidemic occurred only after the surge this year of unaccompanied alien children illegally crossing the border from Latin America, a region where the virus is more prevalent among young children.

Jane Orient, M.D., of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, responded to the Centers for Disease Control’s denial of a causal link between the virus and the surge of illegal-alien minors.

“Keep in mind that Latin American children likely have some immunity and may not be sick, while still contagious,” she told WND.

The concern is that Latin American children in the U.S. might be carriers of EV-D68 even if they display no symptoms of the disease. It can be spread, the study said, by sneezing, coughing and the poor bathroom hygiene commonly found among Latin American unaccompanied alien children. The disease can be transmitted by “feces-to-mouth” contact between an infected person showing no symptoms and a previously uninfected person.

WND reported last week, a peer-reviewed article by German medical doctors challenges a key CDC assumption regarding Ebola, concluding patients who show no symptoms can still transmit a virus like Ebola to another person by a sneeze or a cough.

“Some serious work needs to be done to get to the bottom of this,” Orient said, suggesting a Freedom of Information Act request of CDC confirmations of EV-D68 patient records might reveal important information about how the disease is being contracted in the current epidemic.

I have no evidence that kids raised in the Guatemalan health care system (hah!) are infecting American kids with enterovirus (though TB is another matter). But the blanket statement that not one of the 68,541 abandoned alien kids had the virus? Please. Stop.

That’s the same “settled science” that led to Thomas Eric Duncan infecting two nurses in Dallas. For the love of God, please stop lying to us.

Then I’ll admit I was wr…wro…mistaken.

Comments

Tell a Lie Often Enough…and No One Believes It

Of the myriad and manifest lies Obama told over and over (and over again), we probably agree that the most brazen and most damaging one was that “you can keep your doctor”.

Your doctor won’t even keep you:

As of May 2014, over 214,000 doctors wouldn’t participate in Obamacare plans, and that number may be growing, according to AAF, a free-market think tank in Washington. While some Obamacare kinks have been worked out over the past year, exchange plans remain as unfriendly to doctors as ever.

Obamacare puts physicians — especially the dwindling number of those in private practice — in an especially difficult financial situation, expecting doctors to eat the costs of patients who discontinue coverage and to simply take on more patients to make up for bottom-level reimbursements.

It’s no wonder that in such an unfriendly climate for physicians, many are staying out of Obamacare plans. At the beginning of Obamacare’s first enrollment period last year, over 70 percent of California’s physicians weren’t participating in Covered California plans, according to AAF — a big problem for the state with the largest Obamacare enrollment in the nation.

Obama is squeezing doctors in order to keep rates low.

How’s that working out?

Untitled

[M]ore employers are offering consumer-directed health plans, which usually come with high deductibles. In 2015, 81% of large employers will offer at least one of these plans, up from 63% five years earlier.

Consumer-directed plans typically carry deductibles of $1,500 for individual coverage, more than three times higher than traditional policies, according to the National Business Group on Health.

And these plans will be the only choice for a growing number of workers. The share of larger employers offering only consumer-directed policies is jumping to 32% for 2015, up from 22% this year.

Deductibles are soaring for traditional insurance policies, too.

Deductibles for individual coverage at all firms have jumped to $1,217, on average, up 47% over the past five years, according to the 2014 Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Educational Trust report. In high-deductible plans, they have hit $2,215.

Employers say they want more accountability, and higher deductibles force workers to take a larger role in their own care while shifting more of the costs to them.

Hey, that sounds good to me: health care costs what it costs in part because no one feels the cost. Low premiums and a high deductible make people responsible consumers yet still protected from catastrophic illnesses. But I don’t think it sounds so good to President Obama. Another of his bald-faced lies was “bending” the cost curve. Instead, deductibles have rocketed by more than a third since ObamaCare passed.

Hardly droll, but never dull, ObamaCare is bending us.

Comments

El Presidente

As usual, it’s not Obama’s hypocrisy and dishonesty that galls so much, but the media’s justification of same:

President Obama will delay taking executive action on immigration until after the midterm elections, bowing to pressure from fellow Democrats who feared that acting now could doom his party’s chances this fall, White House officials said on Saturday.

The decision is a reversal of Mr. Obama’s vow to issue broad directives to overhaul the immigration system soon after summer’s end, and sparked swift anger from immigration advocates. The president made the promise on June 30, in the Rose Garden, where he angrily denounced Republican obstruction and said he would use the power of his office to protect immigrant families from the threat of deportation.

“Because of the Republicans’ extreme politicization of this issue, the president believes it would be harmful to the policy itself and to the long-term prospects for comprehensive immigration reform to announce administrative action before the elections,” a White House official said. “Because he wants to do this in a way that’s sustainable, the president will take action on immigration before the end of the year.”

The “Republicans’ extreme politicization of this issue”??? How did they even bring themselves to print those words? Obama has been the biggest demagogue on amnesty north of the Rio Grande. For him now to lose what cojones he has for the basest of political stunts would be comic if… well, it’s just comic.

Tragicomic, maybe:

A lawless amnesty decree is bad enough, but openly saying you’re going to issue such a decree only after the people have had a chance to vote is much worse. Every Republican candidate in the House and Senate needs to make clear that, whatever your views on the substance of immigration policy, a vote for any Democrat is a vote for caesarism, for presidential rule by decree. There’s actually a good deal of support for that on the hard left, but most people, of all descriptions, recoil from Obama’s promised power grab.

Note that it’s a “promised” power grab; the AP report notes “the officials said Obama had no specific timeline to act, but that he still would take his executive steps before the end of the year.” So this isn’t some teabagger conspiracy fantasy, but a promise to decree sweeping extra-constitutional changes to the law, but just to do it around Thanksgiving or Christmas to avoid electoral fallout.

I thought the Democrats would lose big in November, but because of ObamaCare. They still might, but this cynical power-grab is such a lavish gift, it makes ObamaCare look like a necktie or a pair of socks under the tree. Scott Brown, et al: you know what to do, or ought to.

PS: With the possible added benefit of so angering pro-amnesty voters that they will stay home. Nice work, O.

Comments

How to Lie

Not that I’m an expert (more than any other blogger), but one of the first rules of lying is to commit to one lie at a time.

Isn’t that right, Mr. President?

At a Saturday press conference, a reporter asked President Obama a question that’s been on our mind since Obama announced a new U.S. military intervention in Iraq: “Mr. President, do you have any second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq? And does it give you pause as the U.S.–is it doing the same thing in Afghanistan?”

“What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision,” Obama replied. “Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government.”

So, he’s going to blame Bush. Five and a half years into his administration, almost a lame duck himself. Very well, if that’s his plan.

Why then, pray tell, this?

“We needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system,” the president said. The Iraqis rejected that demand. “So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because . . . a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.”

What do you mean “we”, Kimosabe? Don’t you mean “they”, the previous administration? Or is there more to this “we” than we thought?

In an April story for The New Yorker, Dexter Filkins painted a more complicated picture. U.S. military commanders told Filkins that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki “said that he wanted to keep [U.S.] troops in Iraq,” but that “parliament would forbid the troops to stay unless they were subject to local law.” But “President Obama, too, was ambivalent about retaining even a small force in Iraq”:

For several months, American officials told me, they were unable to answer basic questions in meetings with Iraqis–like how many troops they wanted to leave behind–because the Administration had not decided. “We got no guidance from the White House,” [James] Jeffrey [the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad in 2011] told me. “We didn’t know where the President was. Maliki kept saying, ‘I don’t know what I have to sell.’ ” At one meeting, Maliki said that he was willing to sign an executive agreement granting the soldiers permission to stay, if he didn’t have to persuade the parliament to accept immunity. The Obama Administration quickly rejected the idea. “The American attitude was: Let’s get out of here as quickly as possible,” Sami al-Askari, [an] Iraqi member of parliament, said.

How many different euphemisms for the First Prevaricator did you count? And how many ways does he sound responsible for the decision?

Obama himself said as much, during the third 2012 presidential debate with Mitt Romney:

Romney: With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status-of-forces agreement. Did you–

Obama: That’s not true.

Romney: Oh, you didn’t–you didn’t want a status of forces agreement?

Obama: No, but what I–what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down.

So, somewhere between 0 and 9,999 troops, sir? Or are you saying you would have stationed more than 10,000? It’s so hard to tell with you.

It’s hard to take responsibility for your hopeless eff-ups in politics, I get that. But it’s easier than this game of solitaire Twister.

Speaking of hopeless eff-ups:

In a wide-ranging interview with the New Yorker, President Barack Obama compared Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Iraq and Syria to junior varsity basketball players, downplaying their threat as small-league. He also shared what he thought were the chances of reaching Middle East peace agreements.

New Yorker editor David Remnick pointed out to the president that the Al Qaeda flag is now seen flying in Falluja in Iraq and in certain locations in Syria, and thus the terrorist group has not been “decimated” as Obama had said during his 2012 reelection campaign.

“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Obama told Remnick. “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”

Remnick characterized Obama’s analogy as “uncharacteristically flip.”

Yeah, I’d say so. But don’t say that to Obama or he’ll call “horse[bleep]“.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »