Will the US government collapse? How did Russia survive?

How did Russia reorganize after the fall of the Soviet Union? Are there any books out there that explains the history of this event? I want to know because we may be facing a similar event in thei country. If anyone can suggest some reading on this subject I would appreciate it.

I am starting to feel a very distinct rift in America, it feels divided and leaderless, it is almost like high school with all the different groups eating lunch at there own table, all the while never realizing they are attending the same school. It is disheartening on many levels and it is a real shame it has come to this but that does not change the fact that there seems to be issues that large groups of Americans are not able to compromise on.

The question arises; have some of the issues dividing us today been manufactured for the purpose to weaken our reserve? You may have heard of the ancient strategy, "Divide and conquer."

The answer to this is actually very simple in speech but I fear it is much harder to accomplish in practice but I fear it is the only way to stop people from both sides from turning to violence out of anger and fear, this of course is only my opinion.

The United States is and has always been a republic and states rights were very important to our forefathers for a reason. At any given time in history, Americans are bound to be divided on certain issues and in rare occasion, these divides can and sometimes will be irreconcilable, so, what are we to do without arming ourselves and shooting each other? It's a tough question that we shouldn't have to ask ourselves, yet here we are.

Being a republic and being afforded and protected by the one true law we all share as Americans, the constitution, the states themselves can stop the federal government from over reaching on there power, they can and must be the last defense against tyranny because none of us as individuals can do so without well regulated militias, organization, training and leadership. We do not have these things, we have not for some time but the patriot act has assured that we could not create such in the dwindling economy and overstretched laws that quickly followed without being labeled as domestic terrorists instead of normal Americans who live by the law, the real law our country was founded on and for.

Consider this, if those that would take up arms should legislation that is unconstitutional and illegal be put in place and your plan is to take up arms anyway, then, at that point you are all in anyway and would you not try one last thing to avoid bloodshed, most probably your own to achieve the goal of restoring our liberty? Those that can not live with unjust and illegal law, should before violence seek out states that are strongholds for the constitution en mass. If we all do this, we can effect change through peacful non compliance with federal law while being protected by the state, and each other.

The federal government will not seek to enforce illegal laws in states that have outlawed such federal legislation based on blatant non compliance of the constitution and are willing to pledge there law enforcement officers, sheriffs and volunteers of the community to arrest and federal employees trying to do so. If the population really will split 50/50 of such an issue as we have been presented the past month, perhaps it is best we all try going our own way and leaving each other alone before we consider violence as nothing I could imagine could be worse than Americans killing Americans for political ideology.

I am not a pacifist and I would fight to defend the constitution, liberty and freedom, I am no coward but it seems to me that there may be another way and that way is to use the 10th amendment like it hasn't been used since our first civil war and the people who really care, who want to affect change, should do so to at least try to prevent violence if it is avoidable. If enough of us pack our bags, our families and our lives and head to the places they still honor freedom, we may find ourselves with better company and a little more security when we lay our heads down at night.

This is all just my opinion 

First Americans tried Communism...it didn't work!

American History

Did you know that our Pilgrim forefathers tried communism when they first landed at Plymouth Rock? How’s that for a dramatic beginning to a story? Years ago, when I used to give a lot of talks to high-school classes, this was one of my favorites. It always got the students’ attention. And I have to admit, I also enjoyed seeing some liberal teachers get so upset with me they almost lost their lunches. Here’s the story I told those students in those long-ago presentations. The Pilgrims who arrived at Plymouth Rock in 1620 were incredibly brave and hardy souls. They were motivated by the noblest of virtues. They vowed, each and every one, to be as selfless as possible — to always put the needs of the group first. They agreed to own everything in common and to share everything equally. And their naïve piety almost killed them all. We all know how the adventure began. A group of devout Christians, seeking religious freedom for themselves and eager to "advance the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ" in the New World, set sail from Plymouth, England in 1620. An investment consortium known as the Merchant Adventurers of London provided the expenses for the trip, including chartering the Mayflower and its 40-man crew. The deal was simple: The Pilgrims agreed to establish a colony in what is now northern Virginia, where they would plant crops, fish the waters and hunt in the forests. They would return a certain percentage of each year’s bounty to London until their debt had been repaid. Things went wrong from the start. First, the syndicate changed the deal, drastically reducing the amount they would loan the Pilgrims. The brave adventurers were forced to sell many of their own possessions, and much of their provisions, to pay for the trip. As a result, they landed in the New World badly short of supplies. Next, the small ship they had purchased in Holland, which was to accompany them to America so they could fish the waters off the coast, had to be abandoned in England. Shortly after they set sail, the ship, badly misnamed the Speedwell, became "open and leakie as a sieve," as its captain reported. They returned to Dartmouth, where the boat was dry-docked for three weeks as repairs were made. But to no avail. After leaving Dartmouth, the group sailed less than 300 miles when the Speedwell reported it "must bear up or sink at sea." This time the ships put in at Plymouth, England, where it was decided to go on without the Speedwell. On Sept. 16, 1620, the Mayflower set out alone to cross the Atlantic. A month later, when they had reached the halfway point, fierce storms battered the ship and threatened the lives of passengers and crew. Many wanted to turn back for England. But if they abandoned the journey, they would lose everything they had invested. The Pilgrims decided to trust in God and sail on. Despite the storms, the hazards, the crowding and the poor food, only one Pilgrim died during the voyage, a young servant. His death was balanced by the birth of a son to Stephen and Elizabeth Hopkins, who named their child Oceanus. There were 102 passengers on board the Mayflower — 50 men, 20 women and 32 children — along with a crew of 40. The captain set a course along the 42nd parallel, a bearing that would carry him to Cape Cod. From there he intended to swing south and follow the coast to northern Virginia. A little more than two months later, on Nov. 19, land was finally sighted and the captain turned the ship south toward Virginia. However, they soon encountered such "dangerous shoals and roaring breakers" that they turned back to Massachusetts. It was then that the grumblings of dissent turned into a full-fledged roar. Many of the passengers insisted on landing in present-day Massachusetts, where "none had power to command them." The Pilgrim leaders decided to meet the explosive situation by asking each male on board, except for the crew, to sign a formal document that would lay "the first foundation of their government in this place." Thus the Mayflower Compact was born. The Pilgrims were a diverse lot. Many of them were illiterate. Yet in creating the Mayflower Compact, they showed an extraordinary political maturity. They agreed to establish a government by the consent of the governed, with just and equal laws for all. Each adult male, regardless of his station in life — gentleman, commoner or servant — would have an equal vote in deciding the affairs of the colony. Of the 65 men and boys on board, all but 24 signed the agreement. The only ones who did not were the children of those adults who did sign, or men who were too sick to do so. The first decision made under the covenant was to abandon efforts to reach Virginia and instead to settle in New England. The first explorers landed at Plymouth on Dec. 21, 1620. Weather delays kept the majority from seeing their new home for nearly two weeks. On Jan. 2, 1621, work began on the first building they would erect — a storehouse. Because provisions were so scanty, it was decided that the land would be worked in common, produce would be owned in common and goods would be rationed equally. Not unlike the society Karl Marx envisioned of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Unfortunately, thanks to illness, injury and attitude, the system did not work. Pilferage from the storehouse became common. Suspicions of malingering were muttered. Over the course of that first, harsh winter, nearly half of the colonists perished. Four families were wiped out completely; only five of 18 wives survived. Of the 29 single men, hired hands and servants, only 10 were alive when spring finally came. The colonists struggled desperately for two more years. When spring arrived in April 1623, virtually all of their provisions were gone. Unless that year’s harvest improved, they feared few would survive the next winter. The Pilgrim leaders decided on a bold course. The colony would abandon its communal approach and permit each person to work for his own benefit, not for the common good. Here is how the governor of the colony, William Bradford, explained what happened then. This is from his marvelously readable memoir (if you can make adjustments for the Old English spellings), History of Plimoth Plantation: The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Plato & other ancients, applauded by some of later times; — that the taking away of properties, and bringing it in communitie into a commone wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this communitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For yet young men that were most able and fitte for labor & services did repine that they should spend their time & strength to worke for other men’s wives and children with out any recompense. Can you imagine? Some of the youngest and healthiest men in the colony complained that they were working like dogs “for other men’s wives and children.” Sounds like the situation in America today, where the taxes taken from those who work support many millions of others who don’t. After three years of noble failure, the colonists had had enough. Once they replaced communal efforts with individual responsibility, the differences were dramatic — and life-saving. Men went into the fields earlier and stayed later. In many cases, their wives and even their children (some barely past the toddler stage) worked right alongside them. More acres were planted, more trees were felled, more houses were built and more game was slaughtered because of one simple change: People were allowed to keep the fruits of their own labors. In that simple sentence you will find the solution to all of the world’s poverty. Stop taking what others have earned. Let people keep the fruits of their own labors. Then get out of the way and watch the incredible abundance they will produce. On this Thanksgiving weekend, some 390 years after the Pilgrims celebrated the first of this uniquely American holiday, let us remember the sacrifices they made, the devotion they showed and the lessons they learned. Until next time, keep some powder dry. –Chip Wood "But the safety of the people of America against dangers from foreign force depends not only on their forbearing to give just causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are pretended as well as just causes of war." --John Jay, Federalist No. 4 De Oppresso Liber

Have a great day

Sir Richard James, McDonald

KNYAZ Cte MKSJ KOC KR PhD JD LLD

He has made Judges dependent on his Will

alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount

and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither

swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their

substance

The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the

extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the

citizenship to the agencies of government.

City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

Sir Richard James, McDonald

http://www.state-citizen.org/

Jitsi address  rjmcd

Skype address  rjmcd1

Brosix address rjmcd1 (Skype replacemnt)

Join our Citizenship Educational program

(818) 703-5037 voice1

Obama Ban on Youth Farm Chores Part of Larger Power Grab

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
April 25, 2012

Dredging up Dickensian horrors of child labor, the Obama administration has ordered the Labor Department to apply child labor laws to family farms. The new rules would make it illegal for children to perform a large number of labor tasks that have been performed by farm families for centuries. Traditionally, adults and children alike helped with planting and harvesting in the spring and fall, but the federal government is now determined not only to make this a historical footnote, but a criminal offense.

Children have worked with their families on farms for centuries. It is the reason there is now a “summer vacation” for school kids.

Under the rules, children under 18 would be prevented by the federal government from working “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials” and prohibited “places of employment would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.”

In addition to making it far more difficult for families to work their farms, the new rules will revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA and replace them with a 90-hour federal government training course, the Daily Caller reports.

In other words, the federal government will forcibly insert itself in the business of teaching animal husbandry and crop management, disciplines traditionally passed on by families and local communities.

Government apparatchiks will now oversee the business of local farming the same way Stalin did when he collectivized farms and “socialized” production at gunpoint in the Soviet Union. Resistance by farmers and peasants to Stalin’s efforts resulted in the government cutting off food rations, which resulted in widespread famine (the “terror-famine in Ukraine” killed around 12 million people) and millions were sent to forced labor camps.

The Labor Department’s effort to further erode the family farm falls on the heels of an unconstitutional executive order Obama issued last year establishing so-called rural councils.

“According to this new executive order, the Obama administration plans to stick its itchy little fingers into just about every aspect of rural life,” the Economic Collapse Blog noted at the time. “One of the stated goals of the White House Rural Council is to do the following….”

Coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America.

Obama’s plan to make life miserable for family farmers coincides with an effort by the United Nations under Agenda 21. Section one of the executive order mentions “sustainable rural communities,” language right out of Agenda 21. (For more on the draconian aspects of Agenda 21 and the plan to roll back modern civilization under the aegis of “sustainability,” see Rosa Koire’s Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21.)

The federal government has recently moved to clamp down on family farms. For instance, last year the Department of Transportation proposed new burdensome rules for farmers. Incidentally, DOT Secretary Ray LaHood holds a seat on the newly created White House Rural Council.

“In Late May, the DOT proposed a rule change for farm equipment, and if it this allowed to take effect, it will place significant regulatory pressure on small farms and family farms all across America – costing them thousands of dollars and possibly forcing many of them out of business,” writes Mike Opelka. “The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), part of the Department of Transportation (DOT), wants new standards that would require all farmers and everyone on the farm to obtain a CDL (Commercial Drivers License) in order to operate any farming equipment. The agency is going to accomplish this by reclassifying all farm vehicles and implements as Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs).”

Late last year, House Republicans moved to prevent the EPA from further burdening farmers with a rule that would ban “farm dust.” Outrage in response to the proposed regulation came fast and furious and EPA boss Lisa Jackson was forced to back down as Democrats complained that the government was not targeting small family farms with the proposed regulation.

A concerted effort by the federal government to attack small family farms cannot be denied. Infowars.com has covered dozens of efforts, including the attack on Rawesome Foods in California, numerous efforts by the feds to attack raw milk and dairy farmers (including attacks by the FDA on Amish farmers), and a recent effort by the Department of Natural Resources in Michigan to destroy open-range pig farms.

In addition to attempting to micromanage – and run out of business – family farms through federal labor regulations, the government is trying to insert itself in the relationship between parents and their children.

The ongoing attacks on family farming are not merely misguided efforts by control freak bureaucrats. They are part of a larger “comprehensive plan of action” to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations to institute “sustainable development,” a philosophy designed to bring humanity under tight control of the global elite.

As George H. W. Bush said on September 11, 1990, the plan is “based entirely on social control mechanisms.” For the elite, controlling food – especially healthy and natural food produced by family farms – is a primary objective in their plan for global conquest.

SUPREME COURT FIGHTS OBAMACARE...

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became "very stern," the source said, suggesting it wasn't clear whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."

I've reached out to the White House for comment, and will update when we have more information.
UPDATE 6 p.m. ET: The White House is declining to comment on the 5th Circuit's order, but the president today did clarify his comments that it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn laws passed by a democratically elected Congress. During a question-and-answer session after a luncheon speech in Washington, a journalist pointed out "that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence."

Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be "unprecedented" in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress' power to regulate an economic issue like health care.

"The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this," Mr. Obama said.

"Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has," he said.

And now DOJ gets to write three single-spaced pages expounding on that. Due at high noon on Thursday.

UPDATE 6:55 p.m. ET: Audio from the 5th Circuit hearing, with Judge Smith's order to DOJ, is available here.

In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president's comments suggesting courts lack power to set aside federal laws "have troubled a number of people" and that the suggestion "is not a small matter."

The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss "judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation."

"I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday -- that's about 48 hours from now -- a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president," Smith said. "What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?"

Smith made his intentions clear minutes after the DOJ attorney began her argument, jumping in to ask: "Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?"

Kaersvang replies yes, and Smith continues: "I'm referring to statements by the president in past few days to the effect, and sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed 'unelected' judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed -- he was referring to, of course, Obamacare -- to what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress."

In asking for the letter, Smith said: "I want to be sure you're telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts, through unelected judges, to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases."


CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care Reform

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES BREATHING 12% OXYGEN...

"Ineptocracy"

Could not find it in my old Webster's.  Googled it and discovered it is a recently

"coined" new word found on a T shirt on eBay. Getting really close to the bone!

Read this one over slowly and absorb the facts that totally are within this sentence!  I love this word and believe that it will become a recognized English word.

Finally, a word to describe our current political situation:

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-Ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. 

NOTE HOW CONGRESS USES THE COMPUTERS WE GAVE THEM!!!

The FDA asked me what I thought of the new health care bill.

Boy, did they ask the wrong person, that is, if they wanted a dishonest answer.

This is what I sent to: asolano@cenegenics.com date: Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:31 PM

I don't think the government should be involved in health Care.

The best Health Care can only be provided by the free enterprise system. 

The Doctor/Lawyer war has been going on a very long time. Doctors make money and lawyers try to take it away. Its the law of the Jungle. Most members of Congress are Lawyers so we have a government mandated Health Care that limits the amount of money doctors should be paid.

This will reduces the time doctors spend with patients because in order to earn a living they will have to treat more patients thus reducing the quality of Health Care. More people will die from mis-diagnosed illness.

So now you have government mandated death...

Under the Communist system of government people are paid a little wage to do a little work. Under such a system there is no freedom and no hope so why should they work hard? Why should they be productive? When nobody is producing a nation falls. 


Civil service employees take from productive members of society. Ancient Greece fell when 18 % of the population became civil service. Rome fell when 25% of the population was working at civil service jobs.

The reason Governments make up so many arbitrary rules and regulations is so that they have to hire more civil service employees to enforce them. It eventually reaches a point where the productivity of a nation cannot pay the interest on the debt created to pay civil service workers and the military. To keep the whole façade moving along they print more money which steals everyone’s standard of living. Eventually it reaches a point where the government defaults on its debt and whole system falls on its face.

This is the reason the Communist system of government failed and the reason the new health care bill will fail!

On top of that you have civil service workers deciding who gets the heart transplant, the new liver or kidney. If you accidently piss off one of these little government appointed dictators, don’t expect to live very long…  Below is the new Health Care regulation book.

  

Show me one thing the government manages successfully. Social Security?, The Post Office?  The Department of Energy? The Federal Park Service can’t even keep the parks open. 

In order to get good health care we will have to travel to Canada, England, France, Germany, Cuba, Mexico or Japan.

There is a lot more of this health care slavery rant in my book. THE FROG IS COOKED Amazon.com and www.AlaskaPublishing.com

Obama Death Camps

They pledge allegiance to the American flag with the left hand. This has not been photo shoped. Note the rings on their left hand. It seems that Russia is more pro freedom than America. Its understandable what with the death of 80-million people under communism. They have had enough! Why are we so dumb?

Obama Follows Hitler, Stalin and Mao Zedong, Building Death Camps in USA

Front page / World / Americas

10.09.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru

The new academic year in the United States, which began on September 8, was marred with a massive verbal attack against President Barack Obama. As usual, the attack was conducted by ultrareactionary radio hosts, who compared Obama to Hitler, Stalin and Mao Zedong, claiming that Obama wanted to infect American schoolchildren with ideas of fascism, socialism and communism. Rush Limbaugh added Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il on the list and said that Obama wanted to turn the US youth into Hitler Jugend and Komsomol Organization. Sean Hannity of Fox News called Obama a political pedophile.

All of those remarks were made after Obama’s 20-minute back-to-school speech.

Republican leaders in Florida and Utah urged parents not to let their children go to school on the first day of the new academic year, when the president’s speech was going to be broadcast.

"If you're concerned, keep your kids home for the day,” David Bradley, a Republican and member of the Texas State Board of Education told the USA Today. Fox TV channel urged its viewers not to let Obama turn US schools into Gulags, Nazi death camps and Chinese concentration camps. The White House was caught on the hop with such a storm of insanity.

In his speech, Obama urged children to follow their dreams, to respect teachers, to study well and make conclusions from past mistakes. Anything communist there?

“At the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world — and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.

“So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in 20 or 50 or 100 years say about what all of you did for this country?” Obama said.

Does it sound like Mein Kampf?

Obama delivered his speech on September 8 at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. There are 15,000 schools in the United States, where 50 million students study. It is hard to say how many of them were listening to the president’s speech. Each school provided an alternative hour for those students, whose parents did not want them to listen to Obama’s speech.

Obama delivered a brilliant speech, as he normally does. However, when it was time for questions and answers after the speech, he became a totally different person. The president was making long pauses between phrases; one could see that he was taking a great effort to choose words for answers, as if he did not want to say something that he must not say.

A word spoken is past recalling. If Obama had said “Learn, learn and once again learn” then Rush Limbaugh and others would have had a good reason to say that Obama was quoting Lenin to 50 million of American students. Obama said nothing of the kind. All the accusations and comparisons do not make any sense. At all.

Moskovsky Komsomolets