Author Archive

War Machine Goes On The Attack

by Bob Livingston on Wednesday, July 16th, 2014

This is article 86 of 86 in the topic Wars
War Machine Goes On The Attack

FILE

Seeking to head off a potential Rand Paul Presidency and fearing that such might mean an end to perpetual war, the war machine has gone into full attack mode.

It started over the weekend with Texas Governor (and previously Bilderberg-approved) Rick Perry’s op-ed in The Washington Post, in which he warned about the dangers of “isolationism.” He described Paul as “curiously blind” to the growing threats in Iraq.

The use of the term “isolationism” is an old and tired canard the warmongers recycle whenever the American people grow weary of perpetual war and a politician sensing the mood of the electorate comes out and threatens to disengage the U.S. from its constant meddling. Paul has certainly not advocated “isolationism.”

Senator John McCain, who would have the U.S. military engaged in every Mideast country plus half the former Soviet Union if he had his way, piled on, accusing Paul of wanting a “withdrawal to fortress America.” Not to be outdone, former Vice President and longtime Trilateral Commission member Dick Cheney told a luncheon crowd on Monday that “isolationism is crazy.” His daughter, Liz Cheney, declared that Paul “leaves something to be desired in terms of national security policy.”

“I think the general fear on the part of a lot of leaders in the Republican Party is that there’s an isolationist temptation after two big wars, an isolationist temptation in the American electorate,” Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who was a deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush Administration, told Politico. “And I think people are genuinely concerned about it and desirous of trying to stop it before it spreads further.”

It’s not the American people but the neocon establishment that’s “desirous of trying to stop it before it spreads further.” What the American people are “genuinely concerned about” is a desire to end the incoherent foreign policy — advocated by the previously mentioned warmongers as well by the current usurper currently despoiling the people’s house — of arming in one country the very terrorists we are fighting in another. What the American people are “genuinely concerned about” is a foreign policy that considers the interests of Saudi Arabia, Israel and international banksters over the best interests of the United States. What the American people are “genuinely concerned about” is a foreign policy which, in Iraq, pits the U.S. against a supposed ally (Saudi Arabia, which supports and is arming ISIS) and alongside a supposed enemy (Iran, which supports the U.S. puppet regime in Iraq). What the American people are “genuinely concerned about” is a regime that drone strikes innocent civilians around the globe under the guise of fighting a “war on terror” that the current President won’t even acknowledge.

The American people, by and large, have grown sick of war. That’s understandable considering the U.S. has been in a constant state of war since George H.W. Bush double-crossed Saddam Hussein and opened the door to an Iraq invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. It’s been stirring the pot in the region since the CIA dispatched Kermit Roosevelt to orchestrate an Iranian coup on behalf of British oil interests in 1951.

Click to continue reading “War Machine Goes On The Attack”
Go straight to Post

Obama’s Fundamental Transformation

by Bob Livingston on Friday, July 11th, 2014

This is article 987 of 995 in the topic Obama
Obama’s Fundamental Transformation

OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTO BY PETE SOUZA

“Five days. After decades of broken politics in Washington… we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America. In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street. In five days, you can choose policies that invest in our middle class, and create new jobs, and grow this economy, so that everyone has a chance to succeed, not just the CEO, but the secretary and janitor, not just the factory owner, but the men and women on the factory floor.” — Barack Obama, October 2008

Has he succeeded? Let’s see.

His campaign to fundamentally transform the U.S. is in full operation on the border, where his extra-Constitutional action to grant amnesty to young illegals — called Dreamers — has drawn tens of thousands of illegals across the border… along with their Third World diseases. These illegals are now being shipped across America, where they are dumped out to spread their diseases and become drains on society that scarf up what few low-wage jobs there are, and consume social services. Even some of his most ardent supporters now get it.

Obama continues his push for amnesty, which would benefit the large corporations, the unions and the Democrat voter base. His economic policies of profligate Federal Reserve money printing and government spending prop up Wall Street, create bubbles and stifle economic growth. Those same policies, combined with his signature achievement (Obamacare), kill jobs that would be held by the secretary, the janitor and the men and women on the factory floor. America is becoming a society of part-time jobs.

There are more Americans than ever on the public dole. Millions would be starving if not for government welfare programs, which have done nothing but replace the soup lines of the first Great Depression. Money printing continues; and it is nothing more than a great transfer of wealth to the elites and a tax on the poor and middle class, who see their savings gaining nothing and the prices of the things they buy skyrocketing.

This second Great Depression is showing no signs of letting up and looks to run longer and deeper than the first. There is no economic growth, and there has not been for nearly seven years.

This woman wonders why she alone is shouting into the wind.

“Am I the only one in this community that’s out here, that watches the news… I feel alone in this, and I’m very saddened by it,” she said.

Many of us feel the same way.

Go straight to Post

There’s More Than Just ‘Progressivism’ Behind Leftist Commenters

by Bob Livingston on Monday, June 30th, 2014

This is article 192 of 194 in the topic Liberalism
There’s More Than Just ‘Progressivism’ Behind Leftist Commenters

THINKSTOCK

I am not a psychiatrist, but it is evident that a certain psychosis is prevalent in the minds of progressives/statists — or those who are sycophants of the regime or the state or its “leaders,” however you choose to describe it.

We make no bones about the fact that Personal Liberty Digest™ is a site that promotes and espouses the true conservative ideals of small government as prescribed by the Constitution, liberty, personal responsibility, laissez-faire capitalism and non-aggression. These are subjects I have been writing about since 1969 in my printed newsletter, The Bob Livingston Letter™ (www.boblivingstonletter.com, subscription required), and here at Personal Liberty since 2008.

These things — small, Constitutional government; liberty; personal responsibility; laissez-faire capitalism; and non-aggression — are apparently anathema to progressives who worship the state and the regime. Yet we have a large number of them commenting on articles each day (though by the nature of many of their comments, it is unclear whether they bothered to read the articles beforehand). Their comments, when they are anything more than a string of invectives or expletives, are generally contumelious and seem to focus on how irrelevant, kooky, out of the main or downright ignorant they think are conservative ideas and Constitutionalism. From there they typically degenerate to simply trying to shout down or shut up either the author or another commenter.

When queried on why they frequent a site that holds views they find so distasteful and populated by commenters they believe are so “moronic” (their words, see below) the response is usually that 1) they are trying to “educate” conservatives or 2) they find the views and comments “entertaining.”

Doubtless, some of them may be serious about their desire to “educate” conservatives. But as conservatism is a philosophy based on logic and reason and progressivism/statism/collectivism is a philosophy based on emotion and control, the likelihood of a conservative to progressive conversion taking place is less than slim.

Besides, for purposes of educating the readers, progressive commenters offer mind-bending and enlightening commentary like:

  • Rx7pjWhat a moron
  • Rx7pjGarbage
  • Rx7pjTalking about yourself “simpleton”?
  • Rx7pjGarbage
  • Rx7pjNo, you’re the idiot.
  • Rx7pjWhat does this have to do with liberty??

    Just sounds like right winged garbage.

  • Rx7pjHorsesh*&
  • Rx7pjAs I said , YOU are a complete moron. Get a life

And finally:

  • Rx7pjGarbage

These are just a small sampling of many similar comments from this commenter and are not repeats. And should anyone believe that one commenter has been taken out of context and I have made a mountain from a molehill, there’s this:

  • Bob Blanstonoffstfu boy!
  • Bob BlanstonoffIf we wanted any crap out of you we’d pull off your head and dip it out of your neck!
  • Bob BlanstonoffPgkyswcghap
  • Bob BlanstonoffStfu
  • Bob BlanstonoffPlease do everyone a favor and go get embalmed.
  • Bob BlanstonoffPlease butt the hell out, Biotch!

And

  • Ron rGo play idiot.
  • Ron rGive specifics , not talking points. Hell I domes ignor my grown a– children. Does that make me a bad parent ?
  • Ron rIdiots!!!
  • Ron rGo rob a church
  • Ron rDid you have something of importance to add to the discussion ? If not stop jocking !

And then there’s this, from a “guy” who has claimed on multiple occasions to be more enlightened and more educated than anyone here:

  • Paul DorseyBlah Blah Blah Blah Blah!!!

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Local Law Enforcement More Dangerous, Thanks To Trickle Down Of Military Equipment, Militarized Mindset

by Bob Livingston on Monday, June 30th, 2014

This is article 48 of 48 in the topic Police/Fire
Local Law Enforcement More Dangerous, Thanks To Trickle Down Of Military Equipment, Militarized Mindset

SPECIAL

For a mere $2,500, the Walton County, Fla., Sheriff’s Department purchased a military surplus mine-resistant, ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicle — that cost more than $500,000 to build — to help with its law enforcement activities. This is the same vehicle that the U.S. military deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq to use against insurgents.

The Florida county is just one in a long line of communities using Federal programs designed to militarize local law enforcement by providing them with military equipment and military training. Studies estimate as many as 500 communities have acquired MRAPs. The result has helped to turn local police and sheriff’s departments — originally tasked to protect and serve their public — into violent, shoot-first quasi-military organizations terrorizing and abusing the public. This is not hyperbole, as we show regularly in our Power Of The State section.

Walton County is so idyllic and peaceful that residents feel no need to lock their doors, and its peaceful nature is so over-the-top unusual that one of its communities was chosen as the location for filming “The Truman Show.” Yet Sheriff Mike Adkinson said the MRAP was needed as an “insurance policy” to keep deputies safe in dangerous situations.

The problem with police departments acquiring new military “toys” comes in the fact that, when toys are acquired, they are wont to be used. And therein lies the rub. Police use flimsy evidence to suggest “threats” exist, and the military tactics escalate encounters and create more violence.

The American Civil Liberties Union recently completed a study of 800 deployments by heavily armed Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams from 20 law enforcement agencies over the period 2011-2012. It found that more than three-fourths of the deployments were executed — often using MRAPs — to search a person’s home, and more than 60 percent of the time the searches were for drugs. But in at least 36 percent of the SWAT raids studied, no drugs were found. And because police reports were often incomplete, the ACLU notes that the actual figure could be as high as 65 percent.

SWAT teams were originally created to respond to hostage, barricade or active shooter scenarios. But only 7 percent of deployments in the ACLU study were employed for SWAT teams’ original intent.

Records provided the ACLU by 63 responding law enforcement agencies showed they received “a total of 15,054 items of battle uniforms or personal protective equipment” in 2011-2012.

In addition to battle uniforms and gear, officers are increasingly trained in military tactics and they increasingly come from the ranks of military units previously deployed in war zones. Their training “encourages them to adopt a ‘warrior’ mentality and think of people they are supposed to serve as enemies.” And the equipment they use includes battering rams, flashbang grenades and the aforementioned MRAPS or other armored personnel carriers.

It’s not unusual for the raids to be carried out late at night to increase the confusion among the occupants who are startled from sleep. But it also increases the likelihood innocents are in the house, which increases the danger to them.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Further Proof The Establishment Still Doesn’t Get The Tea Party

by Bob Livingston on Monday, June 16th, 2014

This is article 75 of 75 in the topic Tea Party
Further Proof The Establishment Still Doesn’t Get The Tea Party

GETTY
A Tea Party protestor attending a rally in Phoenix in 2009.

Dave Brat’s historic upset of conservative-in-name-only (CINO) pro-amnesty Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor not only made the GOP establishment go temporarily insane, it showed, once again, that even after seven years, the Washington elites still have no concept of what the Tea Party really is.

One would think that a conservative publication like The Washington Examiner would have at least an inkling of an idea. But in his post-mortem of Cantor’s stunning defeat, The Examiner’s T. Beckett Adams showed that Washington, D.C., is so insular and so insulated that it is completely clueless about what is happening in America.

Exercising doublethink only a propagandist for the GOP establishment could employ, Adams wrote that Brat was a Tea Party candidate without Tea Party support who won because of a “strong, personalized ground game.” The Tea Party, Adams writes, “had nothing to do with Cantor’s defeat.”

Adams could not be more wrong. While it’s true that so-called Tea Party organizations like Club for Growth, Freedom Works and Tea Party Patriots sat on the sidelines in the Brat/Cantor Virginia primary, the real Tea Party was hard at work.

The idea of using the Boston Tea Party as the backdrop for a movement against ever-expanding government got its start in 2007 as a money bomb for Ron Paul on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Held on December 16, it was dubbed Boston Tea Party 07.

Two years later, from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Rick Santelli made a famous nationally televised rant against bailouts for underwater homeowners on February 19, 2009.

That week in February, President Barack Obama was busy crossing the country stumping for Federal bailouts and “stimulus” programs. Americans, fed up with both Republicans and Democrats and their bailouts for the crony corporations and banksters, began staging “raucous grassroots rebellions against Beltway spending binges,” as Michelle Malkin wrote at the time. “The new Boston Tea Party is here, baby,” she proclaimed.

No one covered and promoted the local grassroots, mom-and pop-inspired protests more than Malkin. In her column, Rebel yell: Taxpayers revolt against gimme-mania, she wrote:

The first revolt took place on President’s Day in Smurf-blue Seattle, where mom-blogger Keli Carender hastily organized a downtown demonstration to oppose what they called the “stimulus rip-off.” A motley band of nearly 100 protesters — moms and their kids, college students, libertarians, taxpayer groups, GOP activists — raised their voices and dined on pulled pork (donated by yours truly). They assailed both the substance of the overstuffed stimulus package and the short-circuited, non-transparent process by which it was passed.

Some wore pig noses. Others waved Old Glory and “Don’t Tread on Me” flags. Their handmade signs read: “Say No to Generational Theft;” “Obama’$ Porkulu$ Wear$ Lip$tick;” and “I don’t want to pay for the SwindleUs! I’m only 10 years old!” The event was peaceful, save for an unhinged city-dweller who showed his tolerance by barging onto the speakers’ stage and giving a Nazi salute.

Carender, a newcomer to political activism, shared advice for other first-timers: “Basically everyone, you just have to do it.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

The Magical World Of Political Speech

by Bob Livingston on Monday, June 2nd, 2014

This is article 444 of 450 in the topic Government Corruption
The Magical World Of Political Speech

THINKSTOCK

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” – George Orwell

I keep the above George Orwell quote near me at all times. It serves as a reminder to me to decipher political speech whenever I see or hear it.

Political speech contains magical properties. It mesmerizes the masses because it is more illusory than a David Copperfield grand finale.

But political speech is dangerous. While it sounds innocuous, it is as deadly as a bear trap hidden beneath the leaves or a siren singing her song. It can grab you suddenly, or it can ensnare you subtly. Either way, you learn too late that you have been conned and there is no escape.

The magic of political speech is not happenstance. There are change agents at work in the inner sanctums of power whose job it is to create special words and phrases that are used in political speech. Those words and phrases are repeated over and over by the elites in order to dumb us down and create a conditioned response.

The process of dumbing down and the conditioning of the mind to create a nation of good, obedient subjects loyal and subservient to political authority and to the legitimacy of the political order begins early on. We are now several generations into the plan by the elites to create a Nation of state-worshiping ignoramuses taught pseudo-history and inculcated with a loyalty to and dependence upon big government. For many — if not most — of the Nation’s young people below the age of 25, government provided them with most of their meals while the majority of their days were spent submitting to government authority figures (teachers/principals/school officers) in rigid, structured environments that dissuade original thought.

Also aiding the elites and politicians in this effort is an army of “journalists” who never stray far from the official line of the State apparatus. They are eager to spread their lies and half-truths because that ensures them their seats near (or even inside, in the case of the Barack Obama Administration) the halls of power. On that rare occasion one of them strays too far from the party line, retribution is swift and harsh (see Helen Thomas and Sharyl Attkisson). This discourages dissent.

Politicians have learned that the more lies they tell, the more lies we believe. And the more lies we believe, the more dependent we become. Conversely, the fewer myths, lies and deceptions we succumb to, the less dependent we are and, therefore, the more liberty we enjoy.

I long ago learned the power of propaganda. I have watched as otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people have had their minds so manipulated by political speech that they acted contrary to their own best interests without a second thought. It seems that organized and sophisticated propaganda is able to operate outside the threshold of intelligence. In other words, without some imperative to trigger inquiry, very intelligent people buy into lies and myths the same as the general population. The lies and myths then become conventional wisdom. The human mind rarely accepts a challenge to conventional wisdom.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Obama Considered Deploying Military On Bundy Ranch

by Bob Livingston on Friday, May 30th, 2014

This is article 291 of 302 in the topic US Military
Obama Considered Deploying Military On Bundy Ranch

FILE

President Barack Obama considered deploying the U.S. military during the Cliven Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada under the approbation of a Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities signed in 2010.

The Department of Defense directive provides U.S. commanders with the emergency authority to use military support to quell domestic disturbances where needed to “prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property” and when “necessary to restore government function and public order.” A second condition is when Federal, State or local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”

The military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft, and also authorizes the use of drones in operations against domestic unrest, though it prohibits the use of armed drones.

The directive and information that Obama considered deploying the U.S. military in Nevada were revealed by Bill Gertz of The Washington Times Wednesday and famously ignored by the rest of the corporate establishment media. Deploying the military in a domestic law enforcement scenario is a violation of posse comitatus.

A defense official opposed to the directive told Gertz, “This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens.”

Actually it’s not the latest, though it may be the latest revealed. The regime has been arming alphabet soup agencies at an alarming rate, even as it works in nefarious and extra-legal ways to disarm law-abiding Americans and propagandizes against them. All the while, the regime is arming al-Qaida-linked terror groups in Libya, Syria and elsewhere, demonstrating exactly who the regime considers “terrorists.”

According to Gertz, defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units within non-security-related Federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. “The buildup raises questions about whether the regime is undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts,” according to Gertz.

Agencies with SWAT teams include the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department.

So not only has the regime assumed the authority to disappear Americans without trial or habeas corpus under the Congress-passed National Defense Authorization Act, it has assumed under a simple DoD secretary’s signature the authority — and granted it to military commanders — to attack Americans with wanton force if it determines they are a threat. And the second most powerful man in American government, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, has called Bundy supporters “domestic terrorists,” which crosses the threshold needed by the NDAA and the directive to deploy force against Americans standing up to government abuse and overreach.

Go straight to Post

More Progressive Hypocrisy

by Bob Livingston on Friday, May 23rd, 2014

This is article 188 of 194 in the topic Liberalism
More Progressive Hypocrisy

THINKSTOCK

So progressives and hoplophobes (sorry for the redundancy) are lauding the fact that the restaurant Chiplotle has chosen to deny service to people exercising their 2nd Amendment right.

Yet those same progressives went apoplectic when a bakery owner and a photographer chose — for religious reasons — not to bake a cake or photograph homosexual weddings. Can you say hypocrisy?

In a free society, a business should be able to engage in a voluntary transaction or contract, or not, as the owner sees fit, just as the customer has the ability to choose whether to purchase a good or service from a particular business. If a business wants to refuse service to a person wielding a gun, good for it.

Likewise, if a business wants to refuse to perform a service for any other reason, the business should have that right as well.

To support one business’ decision to deny service but not the other is utter hypocrisy. But hypocrisy is the norm for progressives and statists.

To paraphrase Howard Dean, we have had enough of the politics of hate and anger and division. The left wants power so much they think it’s OK to win by taking away the right to bear arms. They are not American. They would be more comfortable in England or Australia.

Go straight to Post

What Difference Does It Make?

by Bob Livingston on Monday, May 19th, 2014

This is article 439 of 450 in the topic Government Corruption
What Difference Does It Make?

THINKSTOCK

Hillary Clinton, in deflecting to Congress over her role in the cover-up of the Benghazi arms-to-al-Qaida-terrorists gunrunning scandal, famously replied, “What difference does it make?” Let’s see.

In December 2012, a scant three months after four Americans were killed while running guns to al-Qaida-linked terrorists in Libya, the Secretary of State reportedly fell and suffered a concussion. She was hospitalized for three days. A month later, the State Department pronounced her fit. Now, Bill Clinton claims it took Hillary Clinton “six months of very serious work” to recover from a “fainting spell” and subsequent concussion and blood clot.

Six months of very serious work implies intensive physical or occupational therapy, meaning she likely suffered a stroke or serious head injury. What difference does it make?

The elites are pushing Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush to be their respective party’s nominees. Both are statists and part of the American monarchy with family ties to the Council on Foreign Relations, the oligarchy that runs the U.S. State Department and the World Bank (i.e., the elites who control the world). That means whichever is elected will mean more of U.S. expanding empire and growing U.S. fascism beyond what we’ve seen over the past three decades. Both of them will work to advance the neocon agenda and U.S. hegemony.

According to the June 2014 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, there have been 248 armed conflicts in 153 locations around the world since World War II ended. The United States launched 201 of them. During the 20th century, coinciding with the rise of U.S. hegemony, there were 190 million deaths directly and indirectly related to war, more than in the previous four centuries.

War is just one of the ways governments steal from their people. Wars benefit the elite, while the people are slaughtered and impoverished.

If either Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton is elected, what difference does it make?

Barack Obama’s immigration department released tens of thousands of criminal illegal aliens last year. This number includes 193 murderers, 426 guilty of sexual assault, 303 kidnappers, 1,075 guilty of aggravated assault and 16,070 drunk drivers. Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and most of Congress publicly proclaim they want to set them on a path to citizenship. What difference does it make?

An influx of illegal aliens will drive down wages, leave millions more Americans unemployed and hasten the slide of America into a socialistic, Third World backwater. What difference does it make?

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents were specifically told not to comment on the release of the 36,000 criminal illegals. What difference does it make?

Doubling down on the President’s efforts to turn the U.S. into a Third World backwater overrun by foreign criminals, the Obama regime has signaled it may take executive action to halt deportations of illegals whose information turns up in Federal immigration databases when they are booked for crimes. Think I’m exaggerating? A House Judiciary Committee report shows that criminal illegal aliens released by the regime between 2009 and 2011 went on to commit 19 murders, three attempted murders and 142 sex crimes. What difference does it make?

The U.S.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Income Tax Always Goes With Paper Money

by Bob Livingston on Wednesday, April 30th, 2014

This is article 295 of 300 in the topic Taxation/IRS
Income Tax Always Goes With Paper Money

THINKSTOCK

Income tax is a regulation system that controls consumption, redistributes wealth and it is a dossier system of government spying on the people. The U.S. tax code is tax evasion for the rich.

I very much doubt that one IRS agent employee in a million understands that Federal income taxes are not for income for the government.

In January 1946 in “American Affairs” Beardsley Ruml, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York stated before the American Bar Association that given control of a central banking system and an inconvertible currency, a sovereign national government is finally free of money worries and need no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue. Anyone can Google Beardsley Ruml and get this information.

Even though income tax is not for income for the Federal government, it is a powerful regulation system under a socialist/fascist government. The states and cities have no such system so they do indeed use the income tax system for income revenue.

Many individuals through the years have tried to confront the illegality of the income tax system. The income tax system is absolutely necessary to impose a paper money system. They go together. It is so important that it is backed by the police power of the State.

Again, when individuals confront the illegality of the Federal income tax system, they are manipulated into spurious issues and if they persist, they go to jail.

The collapse of paper money will bring an end to Federal income tax and all the evil it has foisted upon the people.

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin