Difference between revisions of "War on Freedom"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Socialism and environmentalism: info added; placed selected terms within quotes to make clear that the environmental alarmists' claims are not grounded in fact or logic)
(Tyranny by judges: info added to make clear that what liberal activist judges do to advance their causes is clearly outside the laws of the US and the Constitution)
Line 51: Line 51:
 
===Tyranny by judges===
 
===Tyranny by judges===
 
{{See also|Judicial activism}}
 
{{See also|Judicial activism}}
Liberals have traditionally avoided legislation and the consent of the governed to bring about social change, and have focused on ''judicial fiat'' law to impose a [[cultural Marxist]] agenda, [[abortion]] and [[same-sex "marriage"]] being only two of dozens of obvious examples.  Liberal "judges," under a belief in a "[[Living Constitution]]", feel that they can by-pass elected legislators and "legislate from the bench" or write law themselves. These "judges" reject natural law<ref>Horvat, John (June 23, 2020). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/natural-law-judges-are-the-only-way-to-save-the-judiciary Natural law judges are the only way to save the judiciary]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved October 4, 2020.</ref> and [[originalism]].<ref>Dimino, Michael R. (September 30, 2020). [https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/518536-why-every-justice-should-be-an-originalist Why every justice should be an originalist]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved October 4, 2020.</ref>
+
Liberals have traditionally avoided legislation and the consent of the governed to bring about social change, and have focused on ''judicial fiat'' law to impose a [[cultural Marxist]] agenda, [[abortion]] and [[same-sex "marriage"]] being only two of dozens of obvious examples.  Liberal "judges," under a belief in a "[[Living Constitution]]", feel that they can illegally by-pass elected legislators and "legislate from the bench" or write law themselves. These "judges" reject natural law<ref>Horvat, John (June 23, 2020). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/natural-law-judges-are-the-only-way-to-save-the-judiciary Natural law judges are the only way to save the judiciary]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved October 4, 2020.</ref> and [[originalism]].<ref>Dimino, Michael R. (September 30, 2020). [https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/518536-why-every-justice-should-be-an-originalist Why every justice should be an originalist]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved October 4, 2020.</ref>
  
In 2011 for example, California federal judge Vaughn Walker, who exposed his true liberal colors upon coming out as homosexual and thus ended up in [[conflict of interest]] in the matter, illegally overturned a citizen's referendum which passed overwhelmingly amending the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman before he subsequently retired from the bench.  California [[Attorney General]] [[Kamala Harris]], for the first time in California history, refused to defend the voter's referendum in Appeals Court, resulting in the "legalization" of same-sex "marriage" in California ''against'' the will of the voters and without any action by the legislature.<ref>[https://pjmedia.com/election/6-reasons-to-oppose-nanny-state-tyrant-kamala-harris-in-2020/ 6 Reasons to Oppose Nanny State Tyrant Kamala Harris in 2020], BY TYLER O'NEIL , PJ Media, JANUARY 21, 2019.</ref>  In another example, a court allowed an abortion clinic without a license from the state health department in Mayor [[Pete Buttigieg]]'s hometown to remain open, abiding by the wishes of liberals.<ref>Leventis Lourgos, Angie (August 6, 2019). [https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-south-bend-abortion-clinic-20190806-2glq5hlgyfejvbvhbk2dknhbme-story.html South Bend at center of abortion debate as unlicensed clinic supported by Mayor Pete Buttigieg is allowed to open via court injunction]. ''Chicago Tribune''. Retrieved September 15, 2019.</ref>
+
In 2011 for example, California federal judge Vaughn Walker, who exposed his true liberal colors upon coming out as homosexual and thus ended up in [[conflict of interest]] in the matter, illegally overturned a citizen's referendum which passed overwhelmingly, amending the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman before he subsequently retired from the bench.  California [[Attorney General]] [[Kamala Harris]], for the first time in California history, refused to defend the voter's referendum in Appeals Court, resulting in the "legalization" of same-sex "marriage" in California ''against'' the will of the voters and without any action by the legislature.<ref>[https://pjmedia.com/election/6-reasons-to-oppose-nanny-state-tyrant-kamala-harris-in-2020/ 6 Reasons to Oppose Nanny State Tyrant Kamala Harris in 2020], BY TYLER O'NEIL , PJ Media, JANUARY 21, 2019.</ref>  In another example, a court allowed an abortion clinic without a license from the state health department in Mayor [[Pete Buttigieg]]'s hometown to remain open, abiding by the wishes of liberals.<ref>Leventis Lourgos, Angie (August 6, 2019). [https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-south-bend-abortion-clinic-20190806-2glq5hlgyfejvbvhbk2dknhbme-story.html South Bend at center of abortion debate as unlicensed clinic supported by Mayor Pete Buttigieg is allowed to open via court injunction]. ''Chicago Tribune''. Retrieved September 15, 2019.</ref>
  
 
Far-Left activist courts have increasingly advanced "personhood rights" for animals while continuing to deny the personhood of the [[unborn]].<ref>Horowitz, Daniel (November 8, 2019). [https://www.conservativereview.com/news/us-courts-make-animals-humans/ Could US courts make animals into humans?] ''Conservative Review''. Retrieved November 9, 2019.</ref>
 
Far-Left activist courts have increasingly advanced "personhood rights" for animals while continuing to deny the personhood of the [[unborn]].<ref>Horowitz, Daniel (November 8, 2019). [https://www.conservativereview.com/news/us-courts-make-animals-humans/ Could US courts make animals into humans?] ''Conservative Review''. Retrieved November 9, 2019.</ref>

Revision as of 12:33, 23 October 2020

The War on Freedom refers to the decline in the level of individual freedom, respect for natural law and unalienable rights, and self-governance in Western countries. This decline is accompanied by the decline in biblical values which affirm the importance of freedom.[1] It is advocated by liberals,[2] along with some token conservatives affected by O’Sullivan’s First Law, who instead advocate for socialism, bureaucracy, and the Nanny State. In some cases, the liberals and leftists also misdefine "freedom" to mean "anarchy", often pointing to the French Revolution and several lawless events during that time of the Reign of Terror as well as the September Massacres as focal points to what they defined as a "free society", advocating for that as well, as well as thinking true freedom entails the complete eradication of morality as well as law and order, which is best demonstrated with Leninthink.

Natural law, unalienable rights, and the U.S. founding fathers

Govt placement chart.png
See also: Natural Law, Unalienable rights, and Self-governance

The high level of individual freedom in the United States under the U.S. Constitution, as desired by the Founding Fathers, was inspired by the philosophy of John Locke, who promoted a limited government based on natural law.[3][4][5] Locke argued that all human beings have natural rights which come from God and thus are unalianable.[5][6] The government had an obligation to protect the people's natural rights, and if it did not, the people had the right to overthrow and replace it.[4][5][6] While distinct from divine law, Locke believed that natural law was consistent with the former.[7] Additionally, while he believed that the legislature was the most important part of the government – Locke advocated for the Separation of Powers to limit government – he still believed that the legislature still had to abide by natural law.[7]

In addition to Locke's ideas, expressed in his Second Treatise of Government, the founding fathers were influenced by documents like the Magna Carta, Petition of Right, and the English Bill of Rights, all of which limited governmental power.[4]

The Declaration of Independence was heavily influenced by the belief in the importance of freedom

The U.S. Founding Fathers themselves strongly supported individual freedom and limited government.[8][9] Their experience with the tyrannical British government made them distrustful of a powerful government, and their resolve to not repeat this experience is reflected in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.[10] For example, the Constitution goes to great lengths to mandate the separation of powers, and the Bill of Rights further limits government power to protect individual rights.[10][11][12][13][14][15] The founders also emphasized the importance of property rights.[8][16] Many of the founding fathers warned Americans to stay vigilant against trends that erode individual freedom, including the growth of bureaucracy, violation of the separation of powers, and judicial supremacy.[17]

Additionally, the Founding Fathers cared deeply about preserving national sovereignty, since a sovereign U.S. government would serve the American people alone and protect their unalienable rights, and let them govern themselves.[18] In fact, they chose to declare independence because Britain was not respecting their right to self-government.[18] For example, in his farewell address in September 1796, George Washington warned his fellow Americans against becoming entangled in international treaties and alliances, as he knew it would end American freedom.[19][20]

The Founding Fathers' philosophy led to the creation of one of the strongest countries in history, with a very high level of individual freedom while still maintaining law and order.

War on Freedom in the 21st century

The War on Freedom in the 21st century takes many forms, oftentimes pushed by a liberal elite.[21] In Western societies, it can be painfully apparent in rhetoric of a climate apocalypse. Thomas D. Williams of Breitbart, in commenting on the use of pseudoscience to promote an authoritarian cultural Marxist social agenda and shrill cries for action, observes:

“Any movement toward a more just and civil society can now be considered a meaningful climate action,” asserts a new essay in the New Yorker, which links gun control, immigration, and climate change.

“Securing fair elections is a climate action. Combating extreme wealth inequality is a climate action. Shutting down the hate machines on social media is a climate action,” insists New Yorker writer Jonathan Franzen in his lengthy September 8 [2019] essay.

“Instituting humane immigration policy, advocating for racial and gender equality, promoting respect for laws and their enforcement, supporting a free and independent press, ridding the country of assault weapons—these are all meaningful climate actions,” he writes.[22]

Additionally, liberals are increasingly rejecting the U.S. Constitution itself.[23] Western Europe has also rejected the principle of freedom.[24] As the U.S. moves away from liberty as a fundamental principle, it is shifting toward democratic mob-rule.[25]

Many token conservatives, along with other establishment and uniparty-aligned right-of-center people affected by O’Sullivan’s First Law, have joined liberals in advocating for certain socialist policies that undermine liberty and restrict human freedom.

Examples of the War on Freedom

Religious freedom

Main article: Religious freedom#Examples of restrictions on religious freedom in the West

Liberals, who oppose theologically conservative Christianity and other conservative religious traditions because of their philosophical and policy implications, are increasingly pushing for restrictions on the freedom to practice one's religious beliefs.[26][27]

Illustrating this growing shift, in 2019, the Democrat Party adopted a resolution at their summer convention hostile to religious freedom and in support of the Marxist axiom that "religion is the opiate of the masses."[28][29] The California legislature passed a similar resolution that attacked religious freedom.[30]

Free speech

Main article: Free speech#Examples of restrictions and/or censorship of free speech in the West

The totalitarian Left is intolerant of criticism against it and against the beliefs and ideologies it supports. In the West, countries are increasingly restricting forms of speech that those in power disagree with or consider "hateful," even if said speech is not used in any hateful way. Big Tech, along with prominent Democrats such Rep. Ted Lieu and 2020 presidential candidate Andrew Yang have openly called for censorship of voices they disagree with.

Self-defense

See also: Gun control

Restrictions limiting and even abolishing the ability of citizens to physically defend themselves have significantly increased since the early 20th century. The right to self-defense, considered by the U.S. founding fathers as a core human right that enabled human freedom, has come under greater threat from the Left than before.[31]

Big Tech

See also: Big Tech

Under the control of the Left, Big Tech has evolved into a form of monopolistic corporatism, asserting more and more control over personal freedoms and privacy. The technology in the hands of Big Tech – the microchip, the cell phone, GPS tracking – was developed for military use by taxpayers through the DARPA program.[32] Patents are now held by private technocrats who wish to remake the world into their own leftist ideological image by destroying Constitutional rights – freedom of speech, religion, freedom of association and other basic rights. Various countries and local governments are adopting the use of facial recognition technologies.[33]

Tyranny by judges

See also: Judicial activism

Liberals have traditionally avoided legislation and the consent of the governed to bring about social change, and have focused on judicial fiat law to impose a cultural Marxist agenda, abortion and same-sex "marriage" being only two of dozens of obvious examples. Liberal "judges," under a belief in a "Living Constitution", feel that they can illegally by-pass elected legislators and "legislate from the bench" or write law themselves. These "judges" reject natural law[34] and originalism.[35]

In 2011 for example, California federal judge Vaughn Walker, who exposed his true liberal colors upon coming out as homosexual and thus ended up in conflict of interest in the matter, illegally overturned a citizen's referendum which passed overwhelmingly, amending the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman before he subsequently retired from the bench. California Attorney General Kamala Harris, for the first time in California history, refused to defend the voter's referendum in Appeals Court, resulting in the "legalization" of same-sex "marriage" in California against the will of the voters and without any action by the legislature.[36] In another example, a court allowed an abortion clinic without a license from the state health department in Mayor Pete Buttigieg's hometown to remain open, abiding by the wishes of liberals.[37]

Far-Left activist courts have increasingly advanced "personhood rights" for animals while continuing to deny the personhood of the unborn.[38]

Attack on national sovereignty

Main article: War on Sovereignty

National sovereignty and autonomy are the equivalent of limited and accountable government.[39] With national sovereignty, the government is close to the people, who themselves are sovereign, and protects their rights.[39] Nationalism itself is a positive concept, being closely associated with limited government, individual liberty, tolerance, and national cohesion.[40] It recognizes the diversity in the world but avoids the enmity that results from having different cultures living under a single government.[40]

However, liberals and globalists, who support big government, support reducing or abolishing national sovereignty in favor of a global government that is aloof and cannot be held accountable.[39] This is seen in their support for governmental organizations such as, but not limited to, the United Nations, European Union, and the World Trade Organization. Non-governmental organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations also support reducing national sovereignty.

The United Nations Human Rights Council defines "human rights" in a way that contradicts the classical liberal, Lockean principles of the U.S. Constitution and thus does not promote freedom and liberty.[41]

When voters chose to leave globalist organizations and reassert national sovereignty, such as the case of Brexit, globalist elites worked to block their wishes.[42]

Growth in bureaucracy

See also: Administrative State and Deep State

Growth in bureaucracy comes at the cost of individual freedom. The U.S. federal bureaucracy and number of regulations – along with other western countries – has exponentially increased since the beginning of the 20th century. The permanent institutional bureaucracy, the civil service system, becomes an unelected fourth branch of government whose primary interests are often career advancement, job security, and avoiding responsibility for failure.

Since the founding of the Post Office, campaign promises of "job creation" by some candidates often means "government job creation," which comes at the expense of taxpayers and the private sector's ability to create private-sector jobs, and hence the ability to create more private-sector taxpayers to support government. This is especially true in economic down cycles when advocates of stimulus and deficit spending create more government bureaucracies to alleviate hard times that then outlive their usefulness, albeit with more government workers still holding a full range of government pensions and benefits, as more prosperous times return. (See also Emergency spending and New spending).[43] The growth in bureaucracy comes about by the government workforce and budget growing faster, proportionately, over time to the growth in population, which leads to the gradual impoverishment of people, i.e. the taxpaying public who support a top-heavy bureaucracy.[44]

These newly hired, supposed "non-partisan" civil servants, who owe their permanent jobs to a political party and ideology, then need justification for their continued existence on the government payroll, and turn to social engineering and greater intrusion into ordinary citizen's lives.

Socialism and environmentalism

See also: Green New Deal and Democratic Socialism

Socialism degrades the human spirit by elevating one of the worst human vicesenvy – and making it the basis of law for society and the model of human virtue.

Socialists weaponize climate science to further their political goals. They argue that the only solution to the alleged "crisis" or human-caused "global warming" is the adoption of globalist and socialist[45][46] social and economic policies. For example, environmentalists advocate for higher taxes[47] including the carbon tax, globalist treaties such as the Paris climate agreement, and far-Left Nanny State programs such as the Green New Deal. Climate alarmism is the Left's weapon to gain greater control over society.[48][49] Some environmentalists have proposed blatantly totalitarian policies like extreme lockdowns to combat what they call "climate change".[50]

Ending parental rights

Liberals are increasingly supportive of limiting or abolishing parental rights through policies such as allowing children to change their gender or identify as the opposite gender without their parents' consent or knowledge, not requiring parents to consent to their children receiving an abortion, and allowing doctors to make life-or-death decisions on children, overruling the parents.

Left-wing opposition to homeschooling is another example of this.[51]

Abortion and the LGBT agenda

The Left's support of abortion on demand and the LGBT agenda, including transgenderism, is resulting in government control over what is considered "proper" thought and expression.[52]

Marxist indoctrination in education

Increasingly, children in Western public schools and some private schools are indoctrinated with Marxist thought on various topic-matters,[53] resulting in the younger generations' rejection of biblical Christian, constitutional American, and republican values.

The 1619 Project is a particularly prominent example of this,[54] though most examples are more subtle.

See also

References

  1. Behreandt, Dennis (January 3, 2020). The Divine Message of Freedom. The New American. Retrieved January 5, 2020.
  2. Multiple references:
  3. Powell, Jim (August 1, 1996). John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. Foundation for Economic Education. Retrieved August 24, 2019.
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 2. Foundations of American Government. USHistory.org. Retrieved August 24, 2019.
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 The Declaration of Independence and Natural Rights. Constitutional Rights Foundation. Retrieved August 24, 2019.
  6. 6.0 6.1 Byas, Steve (July 4, 2018). What Is the Fourth of July Really About? The New American. Retrieved August 24, 2019.
  7. 7.0 7.1 Tuckness, Alex (November 9, 2005). Locke’s Political Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved August 24, 2019.
  8. 8.0 8.1 Founders’ Quotes on Founding Principles. Bill of Rights Institute. Retrieved August 24, 2019.
  9. Bleau, Hannah (July 4, 2019). 13 Patriotic Quotes from America’s Founding Fathers. Breitbart News. Retrieved July 4, 2019.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Best, James D. The Founders Believed in Limited Government. What Would the Founders Think. Retrieved August 24, 2019.
  11. Pilon, Roger (July 21, 1995). Founders Intended Only Limited Powers. CATO Institute (from USA Today). Retrieved August 24, 2019.
  12. 3a. The Founders and Federalism. USHistory.org. Retrieved August 24, 2019.
  13. Beeman, Richard R. The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Revolution in Government. Constitution Center. Retrieved August 24, 2019.
  14. 2c. Creating the Constitution. USHistory.org. Retrieved August 24, 2019.
  15. 2d. The Bill of Rights. USHistory.org. Retrieved August 24, 2019.
  16. Snowball, Timothy (July 11, 2019). The Founding Fathers of our limited government: George Washington and the importance of property rights. Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved August 24, 2019.
  17. Strong Warnings from the Founders. National Center for Constitutional Studies. Retrieved August 24, 2019.
  18. 18.0 18.1 Groves, Steven (December 3, 2010). Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America? The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  19. Washington's Farewell Address 1796. The Avalon Project -- Yale Law School. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  20. Washington's Farewell Address. Government Publishing Office. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  21. Hanson, Victor Davis (September 28, 2019). Victor Davis Hanson: Our rights are threatened by an unelected, politically correct, morally righteous elite. Fox News. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  22. Williams, Thomas D. (September 9, 2019). The New Yorker Proposes ‘Ridding the Country of Assault Weapons’ to Fight Climate Change. Breitbart News. Retrieved September 11, 2019.
  23. Byas, Steve (September 23, 2019). Harper’s Magazine Forum: The Problem Is the Constitution. The New American. Retrieved September 23, 2019.
  24. Lane, Oliver JJ (October 23, 2019). 1956 Hungarian Revolution: Why Central Europe Seems to Care More About Freedom Than the West. Breitbart News. Retrieved October 23, 2019.
  25. Wolverton, Joe (November 25, 2019). Book Review: “Liberty in Peril: Democracy and Power in American History”. The New American. Retrieved November 25, 2019.
  26. Anderson, Troy (June 4, 2019). The War to Destroy Christianity in America. The New American. Retrieved June 4, 2019.
  27. Byas, Steve (March 18, 2019). Horowitz: American Left Is at War With Christianity. The New American. Retrieved March 18, 2019.
  28. Foust, Michael (August 28, 2019). Democrats Pass Resolution Applauding ‘Nonreligious Americans,’ Criticizing Churchgoers. Christian Headlines. Retrieved September 6, 2019.
  29. Freiburger, Calvin (September 3, 2019). Democrats endorse ‘nonreligious’ values, reject religious liberty in new resolution. LifeSiteNews. Retrieved September 3, 2019.
  30. Cai, Cynthia (September 12, 2019). California Legislature Pass Resolution Attacking Religious Liberty. The Epoch Times. Retrieved September 12, 2019.
  31. Roberts, David Thomas (August 14, 2019). The Second Amendment is imperiled like never before. The Washington Times. Retrieved August 14, 2019.
  32. Is There a Global War Coming?, George Friedman at Brain Bar, Youtube, Jul 7, 2017.
  33. Napolitano, Andrew P. (September 18, 2019). How the government infringes on the right to be left alone. The Washington Times. Retrieved September 19, 2019.
  34. Horvat, John (June 23, 2020). Natural law judges are the only way to save the judiciary. LifeSiteNews. Retrieved October 4, 2020.
  35. Dimino, Michael R. (September 30, 2020). Why every justice should be an originalist. The Hill. Retrieved October 4, 2020.
  36. 6 Reasons to Oppose Nanny State Tyrant Kamala Harris in 2020, BY TYLER O'NEIL , PJ Media, JANUARY 21, 2019.
  37. Leventis Lourgos, Angie (August 6, 2019). South Bend at center of abortion debate as unlicensed clinic supported by Mayor Pete Buttigieg is allowed to open via court injunction. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved September 15, 2019.
  38. Horowitz, Daniel (November 8, 2019). Could US courts make animals into humans? Conservative Review. Retrieved November 9, 2019.
  39. 39.0 39.1 39.2 Hayward, John (June 17, 2016). Progressives’ Hatred of Nationalism Pushes US Towards the End of Sovereignty. Breitbart News. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  40. 40.0 40.1 Hazony, Yoram (August 24, 2018). The Liberty of Nations. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 25, 2018.
  41. UN "Human Rights" vs. God-given Rights in US - Behind The Deep State. The New American. September 24, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
  42. Byas, Steve (September 25, 2019). Britain’s Struggle to Leave the EU Demonstrates the Tenacity of Globalists. The New American. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  43. In other words, so-called "emergency" or "Temporary spending" often becomes permanent spending, enlarging the federal budget and workforce. Keynesian Economics Turns The Whole Economy Into A Gigantic Ponzi Scheme, Jim Huntzinger, Townhall.com, Aug 29, 2019.
  44. Economist Milton Friedman famously observed that "nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." https://twitter.com/reason/status/1168572040904941571
  45. Bleau, Hannah (September 20, 2019). Watch: Climate Strike Activist Says Climate Change Activism and Socialism Are ‘Inseparable’. Breitbart News. Retrieved September 20, 2019.
  46. Polumbo, Brad (September 23, 2019). The climate change protests are a Trojan horse for socialism. Washington Examiner. Retrieved September 23, 2019.
  47. Guarascio, Francesco; Maushagen, Peter (September 13, 2019). EU considers energy taxes to counter climate change. Reuters. Retrieved September 13, 2019.
  48. Tucker: Climate protests are not about the environment. Fox News Video. September 20, 2019. Retrieved September 23, 2019.
  49. Using "Climate Change" to Enslave US - Behind The Deep State. The New American. September 30, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
  50. Murdoch, Anthony (October 1, 2020). Rockefeller Foundation–funded prof: Govts could use lockdowns to tackle ‘climate emergency’. LifeSiteNews. Retrieved October 22, 2020.
  51. Newman, Alex (December 11, 2019). Totalitarians Working to Crush Homeschooling in America. The New American. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
  52. Morgan, Jason (January 8, 2020). The Left Unleashes the New Furies of Unfreedom. The American Conservative. Retrieved January 9, 2020.
  53. Newman, Alex (August 29, 2018). Socialists Urge Infiltration of Government Schools. The New American. Retrieved August 29, 2018.
    See also:
  54. Multiple references: