In the aftermath of the Arizona immigration law, Representative Peter Palumbo (D-16) the Deputy Majority Leader and a longtime foe of illegal immigration, decided to introduce a similar bill to the Rhode Island House of Representatives.  Representative Palumbo’s bill did not go without attention, making headlines around the country ranging from CNN.com to an interview on Fox News with Neil Cavuto.

Of course upon hearing of this bill radical leftists arrived on the scene to stage an unruly demonstration in the middle of the House Floor.  They entertained the legislature by whining until escorted out by Capitol Police.  Interestingly, Representative Douglas Gablinske, who was on the floor at the time, commented of the protesters, “I didn’t remember any Latinos there; I don't remember any African-Americans. What I remember was a group of mostly younger people -- white, Caucasian who were milling about" (CNN.com).

Given such “hostile” pressure, House Speaker Gordon Fox decided to table the legislation which was up to twelve cosponsors on the grounds that this was an issue for the federal government to solve.  Apparently Speaker Fox did not receive the memo that a recent NY Times poll indicates that over 60% of Americans support the new Arizona law.  He must be too busy trying to balance the budget for the end of session that includes between 150-350 million tax dollars annually that go to social services specifically for illegal aliens (stated by Palumbo in his interview with Cavuto).

Refusing to back down in the face of Speaker Fox’s pathetic excuse, Representative Palumbo organized a protest at the steps of the Statehouse with the Rhode Island Tea Party, right wing Tenth Amendment Activists, and Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement (RIILE).  It was an impressive turnout with around 150 vibrant supporters attending even though the rally took place at 4PM while most people are still in work.

Rhode Islanders at the rally were generally unified in their opposition to Speaker Fox, and the fact that the Rhode Island General Assembly is too cowardly to actually take a firm stance on what is a very important issue.  The general feeling I received after speaking with a wide variety of people was that even the more pragmatic Republicans and moderate conservatives who would normally balk on this issue were coming out in support of this piece of legislation. 

The rally then moved into the statehouse rotunda where rousing speeches were given by Terry Gorman, the Founder and Director of RIILE, local radio show hosts Jon Depetro and Helen Glover, and a variety of other activists. I even managed to meet a couple of reporters and get a quick interview with a local radio station.

It was an interesting rally with a few important points of interest.  One is that YWC is definitively on the map, and that we are a known quantity to both friend and foe alike.  A number of the leftists sifting through the crowd kept taking photos of me once they recognized the logo on the shirt. 

Additionally, a number of random activists from around the state who I never have met before came up and recognized the organization and voiced their support for our mission statement.  I even met a faculty member at Providence College who will go unnamed who told me he had been a long time supporter of YWC and deplored the current state of the college.  This is fairly typical.  YWC's support is like an iceburg -- we have a huge number of supporters who are worried about their jobs or academic status and feel they can only endorse us silently.

The tide is definitely on our side, and if Rhode Island is any indication, Americans are truly ready to take their country back.  With courageous politicians like Peter Palumbo, and an army of dedicated activists, there is no reason to allow the political class to ignore our concerns while our country is thrown into the trash heap of history.

Video of the rally from the Providence Journal:

http://www.projo.com/video/?nvid=414317

Sources

Rep. Palumbo on Neil Cavuto:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-X1syr9t1Q

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us/04poll.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/25/rhodeisland.immigration/index.html

http://newsblog.projo.com/2010/05/palumbo-surprised-by-fox-disal.html

YWC president Kevin DeAnna has summed up pretty much everything I had to say about Tom Tancredo's appearance at UNC Chapel Hill. The media exaggerated the number of walkouts, Tancredo's speech was well received by the audience, and the action taken by SDS didn't live up to the hype. When the event was over, I was amazed that it had went off without incident. I hadn't expected such a cakewalk.

A few dirty leftists showed up to protest our event. These crazy people exist on every college campus. According to Wikipedia, UNC Chapel Hill has 28,135 active students. I saw anywhere from 14 to 20 communist agitators outside the Student Union and maybe 100 gathered around in a semi-circle watching their little circus. The vast majority of students - in particular, natives of North Carolina - could not be persuaded to support their sanctimonious grandstanding.

YWC received messages of support from across the Tar Heel state. Locals repeatedly called to thank us for standing up to the Left's radical agenda on North Carolina campuses. Lots of good folks from North Carolina sent us inquiries asking what they could do to help. Like Virginia and Florida, North Carolina is another Southern state that trended blue in 2008, but has since dramatically reversed course in 2010. President Obama and the Democratic Party have lost a lot of their credibility there.

Outside the bastions of liberalism, North Carolina is still a relatively conservative Southern state. I've been told the Tea Party movement is especially active in the mountainous areas of Western North Carolina. These people look upon the communist scum of SDS with utter contempt. They don't represent North Carolina or its values. The typical voter in North Carolina rejects the SDS message that "no human being is illegal."

While Kevin was inside with Tancredo, I spent a fair amount of time outside watching the small protest. A lot of people stopped to watch for the same reason they look at car accidents. I took some photos and shot a few minutes of video with my digital camera. It was mostly uneventful bile about how YWC is a "white supremacist" organization and Tom Tancredo is a "racist." I laughed out loud at the dire warning that Arizona is now an apartheid state. Do mainstream voters in North Carolina believe that nonsense? I don't think so.

Inside the building, Tom Tancredo patiently explained over and over again that anyone can assimilate and become an American. I lost count of how many times emphasized that their was no racial barrier to American citizenship, but that Americans should at least share a common culture and set of political principles, which is more or less the mainstream view. His actual message was lost on the morons assembled outside in their ignorance convention.

Here are the facts:

1.) Tom Tancredo and YWC are not calling for the restoration of Jim Crow or anything resembling "white supremacy."

2.) Tom Tancredo and YWC do not support racial discrimination. As Tancredo pointed out, there is no racial barrier to becoming an American.

3.) Tom Tancredo and YWC do not believe that some races are "superior" and others are "inferior." There is literally nothing on this website about any of that.

Pretty simple, right? So simple a caveman could understand it. The charges of "racism" and "white supremacy" are spurious and false. Which opens up a whole new can of worms.

I can say without a shadow of doubt that "racist" and "fascist" are the most abused words in the English language. Originally, they had a discernible and objective meaning, but now they are just crude epithets that people use to attack and shout down groups they don't like.

The radical Left has been pushing the envelope: "racism," which used to be mean racial discrimination or the belief in the superiority and inferiority of races, has been broadened to include all angry white people, in particular those who support America and Western civilization, and who are suspicious of concentrations of power. The Tea Party movement has been tarred for over a year now with the racism brush.

The good news is that the Left has exhausted all the capital and good will it accumulated under George W. Bush in less than two years. Patriotic Americans are furious and pushing back against their maligners. YWC pushed back the radical Left at UNC Chapel Hill. They were unsuccessful in their attempt to disrupt our event this year.

I came away from UNC Chapel Hill with the impression that SDS and these other crazy groups are a small vocal minority - a mouse that roared - and that we could bury them if we only got our act together. YWC will be holding more of these events in the future.

Update: The photos we shot of the SDS protest are on Flickr. My two videos above are on YouTube. A longer video we shot will be uploaded to YouTube some time this afternoon or evening.

Yesterday, the Second Amendment March was held in Washington, DC, adjacent to the Washington Memorial. About 2,000 gun rights advocates from across America were in attendance. The NRA and Gun Owners of America were there. A smaller "open carry" rally was held across the Potomac in neighboring Virginia. The armed group attracted most of the headlines.

YWC chose to attend the larger event. We arrived at the Second Amendment March shortly after noon, snapped some photos, and shot some video with a camcorder. The large crowd in attendance were waving the Gadsden flag which we saw at the Tea Party Express rally on Tax Day.

As I was walking through the crowd, snapping photos and passing out flyers, I noticed the booming voice of a man coming from the stage. I thought nothing of it until my eyes caught a glimpse of the speaker. It was a man in a dress, a male-to-female transsexual, rambling on about why the gay community needed to support gun rights to defend themselves from hate crimes.

My jaw dropped in disbelief that a post-op tranny had been invited to speak at an ostensibly social conservative event. The tranny went on at some length about how the event was a lovefest, not a hatefest. This culminated in its assertion that the Black Panthers - yes, the murderers of police officers - had been right all along. The tranny praised Bobby Seale at some length.

In Soul on Ice, Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver called the serial rape of White women an "insurrectionary act." I recall reading this in David Horowitz's autobiography. He used to be affiliated with the group until its mindless criminal violence prompted his departure from the Left.

At that point, we left the rally in disgust. It was especially dispiriting to see crowds of patriotic Americans nodding in agreement at the outrage taking place on stage. Such a capitulation to political correctness is symptomatic of a deeper rot within the Right.

Original article by Hugh Fitzgerald published at Jihad Watch. To see the video in question and my take on the whole affair, click here. 

At Jihad Watch, less than a week ago, on January 28, a YouTube video of Awadh A. Binhazim, Ph.D., was put up.

The tape shows one Awadh A. Binhazim being subject to questioning by a persistent questioner. The tape received a good deal of comment (a heinzian 57, at last count) here. Many rightly deplored what they described as Binhazim's attempts to avoid stating what, in the end, he was forced to admit. That is, - under a questioner's relentless refusal to give up, and that questioner's insistence on receiving a straight answer to the question "does Islam proscribe capital punishment for those who are practicing homosexuals and do not renounce their homosexuality?," Awadh Binhazim, Ph.D., Professor of Pathology at Meharry Medical College and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Adjunct Professor of Islam at the Divinity School, Vanderbilt University, Adjunct Professor of Africana Studies at Tennessee State University, most reluctantly and begrudgingly, finally answered: "Yes."

But despite being put up just a few days ago, I think that tape is worth a rewind, and then replay, stopping here and there along the way to observe those few minutes of meretriciousness on display. And together we can observe, and analyze, the usefully distinct stages of Awadh Binhazim's effort to dodge and weave as best he can. He clearly is perfectly aware of what Islam teaches. He did, after all, attend a madrasah as a child in Kenya, then was a student of Islamic studies in Saudi Arabia, and for years has been an "explicator" of Islam to the Infidels, whenever he can inveigle an invitation, or invite himself, to present - why, practically as a public service - his exposition on Islam. He has even offered to give "free courses" on Islam - in short, a solid Muslim citizen, ready to mislead here and there and everywhere, even as he conducts his Da'wa for the Unwary. Awadh Binhazim is not one of those Muslims who is a bit hazy on what Islam teaches, someone who can claim "he didn't know." He knows.

Remember that Awadh A. Binhazim begins by saying that there is no room in Islam for questioning. The rules are laid down. You are not to challenge them, not to ignore them, and not to ask if, morally, they make sense. You are only to ask what those rules - on What Is Commanded and What Is Prohibited - and to slavishly follow those rules. What Islam says, Awadh A. Binhazim agrees that he, and all other Muslims, have a duty to accept. That's a useful admission, though of course he will now dodge and duck and try not to be held onto, as he attempts not to answer a simple question about Islam, capital punishment, and homosexuality.

But the questioner would have none of it.

So what is the first thing that Binhazim attempts? It's Tu Quoque. It's this: an immediate refusal to answer the question, and instead, a shifting attention to Judaism, to Christianity, to "other religions" that "condemn homosexuality." We do it, You do it, Everybody does it. Well, he, Awadh A. Binhazim, Ph.d. (Professor Pathology at Meharry College, and Adjunct Professor, no doubt hoping and scheming for more, at Vanderbilt), ignores the precise question, eliminates the part about the death penalty, and simply reduces it to "disapproval of Islam" and then, quickly, alludes to what he would have his questioner and the larger audience believe is identical "disapproval of homosexuality" in other religions, in all of them, in fact. At this point the most obvious thing must surely come to mind: well, some religions do condemn homosexuality, but which of them, in doctrine or in present-day practice, condemns homosexuals to death? And do we have reason to believe that, at least in the Western world, the entire direction of things has been toward greater and greater tolerance, even acceptance, with both the tolerance and the acceptance often comically ostentatious, while society's new norms cause some to express their doubts or lack of shared enthusiasm circumspectly? Think of those SNL skits, or the Stewart-and-Colbert mick-mockeries, when they imitate a speaker nervously and incessantly, when discussing the topic, constantly reiterating "not that there's anything wrong with that."

The Tu Quoque at this point falls flat. The questioner, who will not be deflected, fails to be satisfied with it, and most in the audience no doubt recognized its ridiculousness, even if they haven't themselves seen the online pictures of homosexuals subject to judicial murder in Iran, or read the reports on the murder, by Muslims, on their own, applying the Shari'a punishment of death to homosexuals in Gaza, or the West Bank, or Iraq, or other places in the Arab-dominated countries where such news sometimes gets out.

No doubt the failure of this was a disappointment to Awadh Binhazim, and he quickly grasps at another rhetorical straw, in his attempts to avoid answering the question.

This time it is not Tu Quoque - "you do it too (and probably worse)" -- but rather, an attempt to confuse the questioner, and the rest of the audience. Ah, says Binhazim, we really can't answer that question, can we, because there is no country in the world where the law is the pure Shari'a, and if we have no country where the law is identical with Shari'a, then how can we give an answer as to what the Shari'a would say? We just don't have any example, in reality, of such a legal code now being enforced. But this is nonsensical. The Shari'a exists independently, in the ether of Islam, and the question was not what does Saudi Arabia do, or Pakistan do, by way of punishing homosexuals, but what does the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam, mandate? Binhazim knew perfectly well that the hudud, or criminal punishment, exists in forms, more or less diluted, in a number of Muslim countries, and he also knows that there is great hypocrisy in the application of the law in those countries, so that the fantastic sexual decadence of the Al-Saud (see, for example, Robert Baer's book on the Saudis), no doubt makes them less likely, given the proclivities and experience of members of the Al-Saud, to administer fully the Shari'a when it comes to what are regarded, in the Shari'a, as prohibited acts and attitudes. To give an answer that says, in effect, nowhere in the world is the Shari'a completely identical to the law of the Muslim land, so therefore we cannot say anything at all about the contents of the Shari'a, is self-evidently nonsensical.

That too, does not dissuade the relentless questioner.

And so, finally, mentally squirming and most unhappy, Awadh Binhazim - who, after all, also was aware that in his audience were Muslims who knew the rule, and perhaps even among them converts to Islam who had learned the rule from him, Awadh Binhazim himself, in his local efforts at Da'wa - says, quickly, as if rapidity of delivery would somehow allow his admission to avoid attention, says: Yes. Yes, in Islam homosexuals who do not abjure their behavior are sentenced to death.

And there's a lesson there. The lesson is that the behavior of the questioner, the relentlessness of him (and the fearlessness, too, of course), is to be admired and emulated. For there are people like Awadh Binhazim all over this country, giving their little "introduction to Islam" talks, and they have to take questions, they can't avoid taking questions. That's not the American way, after lectures. And when they do, there should always be a handful of determined questioners ready to ask about Islam. But not always, not only, not even mainly, about homosexuality, as here.

They should ask about what Islam inculcates about the status of women. They should ask what Islam says about Art, about sculpture, and about paintings of living creatures, and list ten masterpieces of Western art whose creation would have been forbidden under Islam. They should ask what Islam teaches about Music, and what that might mean for such things as jazz, or gospel music, or any kind of music at all - with perhaps the kind most important to other members of the audience carefully mentioned. ("So you're telling us that Mozart, and Louis Armstrong, and the dancing of Fred Astaire with Ginger Rogers, and Johnny Cash with June Carter, would all be banned? You're telling me that Beyonce would be locked up?") They should ask about the Muslim attitude toward free and skeptical inquiry, and whether or not Muslims are allowed to question in any degree, at any point, what Islam teaches, and if they are allowed to discuss the morality of this or that rule, especially the rule as to what Muslims should think of, and how they should behave toward non-Muslims, and whether they agree that non-Muslims everywhere should have the exact same rights, be treated equally to, Muslims, in Muslim-ruled lands, including of course the right to build their own religious structures, and the right to freely proselytize.

And in every case, about these and other topics, the questioners (an attractive girl, for example, would not be out of place among such prepared questioners) should come prepared. They don't have to have a lot. They don't have to come with hundreds of passages from the Qur'an or several hundred Hadith. They need, however, to have the most relevant texts - not only from the Qur'an, but from the Hadith (from the "authoritative" collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim, and Hadith that have by those muhaddithin been assigned to the rank of being "most authentic"). They should be prepared to discuss Muhammad, and the prisoners from the Banu Qurayza, and Asma bint Marwan, and Abu Afak, and the Khaybar Oasis, and little Aisha. You will, of course, have already established that, in the eyes of Muslims, Muhammad is the Model of Conduct (uswa hasana), and the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil). And thus, when you raise these matters, this may cause ill-concealed fury and even hysteria on the part of the Muslim you are questioning. And that display of hysteria can be useful, can be instructive for the other non-Muslims, until then perhaps unwary, in the audience. And that is what you are trying to do.

You are trying to take that door into the truth, opened by that intrepid questioner in Nashville, and leave it ajar. And not ajar only in Tennessee.

Muslim student adviser: Death penalty for 'gays'

Vanderbilt religious 'staff' says, 'I go with what Islam teaches'

by Bob Unruh

Original Article on WorldNetDaily

Vanderbilt University is distancing itself from a Muslim chaplain after he told a gathering of students homosexuality is punishable by death under Islam.

"I don't have a choice as a Muslim to accept or reject teachings. I go with what Islam teaches," said Awadh A. Binhazim, who is listed on the Vanderbilt website as "Adjunct Professor of Islam at the Divinity School" and an adviser to the Muslim Student Association. His comments came earlier this week at a diversity event for students.

He was asked directly, "Under Islamic law is it punishable by death if you are a homosexual?"

Binhazim said, "Yes. It is punishable by death."

The school immediately distanced itself from the professor, issuing a statement to WND that denied he was an "employee" and reaffirming Vanderbilt's "non-discriminatory policies."

"Vanderbilt University is dedicated to a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of race or sexuality," said the statement dispatched by e-mail from the school to WND today.

"Awadh A. Binhazim is not and has never been a Vanderbilt employee, and is not paid by the university. He is the university's Muslim chaplain under a working agreement that is similar to those signed with chaplains of other faiths at Vanderbilt. This working agreement requires Binhazim to observe Vanderbilt rules, including its non-discriminatory policies. Vanderbilt does not limit the free speech of its students, faculty, staff or its chaplains in any way."

His profile on the Vanderbilt Dean of Students website explained Binhazim was born and raised in Kenya and studied Islam in a madrassah as a child and later at King Faisal University in Saudi Arabia. He earned a master's degree at the University of Nairobi and his Ph.D. in pathology at the University of Georgia in Athens.

"He is the founder and program director of a series of courses (offered for free to those interested) on Islam held in Nashville, Tennessee. Within these courses as well as at the Divinity School of Vanderbilt University, Professor Binhazim teaches about Islamic beliefs, spirituality, and moral code of Islam, monotheism, Muslim cultures, and civilizations," the description continues.

His free course at Vanderbilt called "Introduction to Islam" is to begin Feb. 5:

The questions, at a student event held by the Muslim Students Association and the Army ROTC, were asked by Devin Saucier, president of Vanderbilt's chapter of Youth for Western Civilization.

He told WND it was a "30-minute, roses and butterflies overview of Islam."

Saucier said in a blog he wondered about the "unholy alliance between Muslims and leftists – how could the latter, who fervently support multiculturalism, gay marriage, and gender equality, ally with the former, who support religious and cultural supremacy, traditional marriage, and the oppression of women?"

"When I saw that the Muslim Students Association (MSA) was hosting an event titled 'Common Ground: Being Muslim in the Military' which was sponsored by the Project Dialogue committee, I knew it would be ripe grounds for me to expose the gullibility of leftists who grovel at the altars of tolerance and acceptance," he wrote.

Saucier documented the question-and-answer exchange on video.

The reaction has just started to develop, but Saucier wrote that immediately after the meeting a "rather flustered girl" demanded to know why he asked the question.

"Why would you ask some irrelevant question like that?" she said.

"I think my question was quite relevant, since there are a number of homosexuals in the military," Saucier replied.

"So?" she responded.

"Well let me put it this way. If I was a homosexual in the military, I would want to know if the religion of the person fighting next to me demands my death. That would be significant to me," he said.

"Well I learned in Sunday school that Christianity condemns homosexuality too!" the girl said.

"Yes, Christianity does consider homosexuality sinful, and Christians pray for homosexuals because of it, while Islamic law says they should be punished with death. See the difference?" he responded.

I have often been puzzled about the unholy alliance between Muslims and leftists – how could the latter, who fervently support multiculturalism, gay marriage, and gender equality, ally with the former, who support religious and cultural supremacy, traditional marriage, and the oppression of women? I have concluded that leftists enter this alliance out of naïveté and ignorance, while Muslims quite sensibly enter it for political and social expediency. Leftists can't accept that a group might purposefully deceive them because, deep down, everybody loves each other…… right?

So when I saw that the Muslim Students Association (MSA) was hosting an event titled "Common Ground: Being Muslim in the Military" which was sponsored by the Project Dialogue committee, I knew it would be ripe grounds for me to expose the gullibility of leftists who grovel at the altars of tolerance and acceptance.

The event went as expected, with Vanderbilt Adjunct Professor Awadh A. Binhazim providing a thirty-minute, flowers-and-butterflies overview of Islam, and Captain Darryl Cox explaining how much intolerance and discrimination he experiences as a Muslim in the military, all the while remaining silent on the subject of the Fort Hood Massacre. His talk left you with the same New York Times taste in your mouth that Major Hasan was motivated not by Islamic laws and the Islamic religion (like this man admits), but because somebody told one-too-many Muslim jokes.

While all of this was true to form, the real action happened during the Q&A, when I asked Professor Binhazim if he accepts the Religion of Peace's stance on the punishment for homosexuality:

Me: Under Islamic law is it punishable by death if you are a homosexual?

Professor Binhazim: Yes. It is punishable by death.

Shocking, yes?

It shouldn't be.

The death penalty for homosexuality is common dogma throughout the Muslim world, and, as Professor Binhazim reluctantly admitted, it is Islamic law itself, which all Muslims must accept.

"God is very straightforward about this — not we Muslims, not subjective, the Sharia is very clear about it, the punishment for homosexuality, bestiality or anything like that is death. We don’t make any excuses about that, it’s not our law — it’s the Koran."

So spoke Sheikh Khalid Yasin in 2005. Sheikh Yasin is, according to Robert Spencer, "an American-born, England-based Islamic preacher who has been the Muslim Students Association spokesman at universities all over the country, including Penn State, Ohio State, the University of Minnesota, and St. Cloud University."

It is not as if these ideas occur in a void, either. Iranian gay and lesbian human rights group Homan has stated that since 1980, Iran alone has executed some 4,000 homosexuals. Homosexuality is also a capital offense in Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. Robert Spencer has a comprehensive analysis of Islam's treatment of homosexuals here.

So why are leftists not in outrage over this? Why weren't there dozens of leftists asking the same question and exposing the same radical beliefs? As I said earlier, it is because they are blinded by their naïveté. They are unable to grasp basic, irreconcilable civilizational differences. They assume, without reserve, that all cultures are compatible with our basic senses of justice and propriety and that surely no culture really holds that homosexuals should be put to death. In short, the political correctness of the left is a cult of ignorance.

Case in point: after the event, a rather flustered girl came up to me demanding to know why I asked that question –

Girl: Why would you ask some irrelevant question like that?

Me: I think my question was quite relevant, since there are a number of homosexuals in the military.

Girl: So?

Me: Well let me put it this way. If I was a homosexual in the military, I would want to know if the religion of the person fighting next to me demands my death. That would be significant to me.

Girl: (sarcastically) Well I learned in Sunday school that Christianity condemns homosexuality too!

Me: Yes, Christianity does consider homosexuality sinful, and Christians pray for homosexuals because of it, while Islamic law says they should be punished with death. See the difference?

Girl: Well no one really believes that anymore.

Me: Yes they do. Iran, for instance, has put 4,000 homosexuals to death since 1980.

Girl: I still don't see why you asked the question.

Me: Then you are hopeless.

She was so wrapped up in her liberal sensibilities that she wasn't able to see what happened right in front of her face! I can only hope I planted some seed of awareness in her and the other students attending.

As YWC continues to grow and our activists continue raising awareness of radical Islamic beliefs, hopefully those on both sides of the political spectrum can remove the blinders of political correctness and look at things as they truly are, and not as they imagine them to be.

Youth for Western Civilization joins the protest on Tax Day 2009.