tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post7252248406588000660..comments2024-03-16T08:36:39.345-06:00Comments on American Revolution Blog: The Danger of David BartonBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-48001863190590510442015-12-05T12:38:05.861-07:002015-12-05T12:38:05.861-07:00In light of the known fact that modern public educ...In light of the known fact that modern public education is designed by Communist sympathizers like the Owenites, the Fabian Society, John Dewey, the Tides Foundation, BILL AYERS, and the well-known reality of respected "historians" writing revisionist history, can anyone with any intelligence take this article seriously? <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722404092918358875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-78116942267081595552015-12-05T11:36:37.156-07:002015-12-05T11:36:37.156-07:00WHO IS TEACHING YOU?!!!
https://www.youtube.com/w...WHO IS TEACHING YOU?!!!<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLCmemsW8rI<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722404092918358875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-47730308814812512952015-12-05T11:34:52.925-07:002015-12-05T11:34:52.925-07:00In light of the known fact that modern public educ...In light of the known fact that modern public education is designed by Communist sympathizers like the Owenites, the Fabian Society, John Dewey, the Tides Foundation, BILL AYERS, and the well-known reality of respected "historians" writing revisionist history, can anyone with any intelligence take this article seriously? <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722404092918358875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-82572276627108763122012-05-24T10:53:01.209-06:002012-05-24T10:53:01.209-06:00Economic downturn? No, it's just the "je...Economic downturn? No, it's just the "jewish" moneychangers doing what they've said they'd do for a couple of millenia: They're engineering economic catastrophies so they can take possession of all the goyim's wealth and property. Goyim is the word "jews" use for us Gentiles; it means "human cattle". "Jews" have God's permission to rule over us human cattle with an iron scepter. Read about it:<br /><br />http://talmudunmasked.com<br />http://100777.com/protocols<br />http://tinyurl.com/JewsFoundedCommunismPeriod<br />http://tinyurl.com/JewsAmericasWorstEnemies<br /><br />YOU'D BETTER PULL YOUR HEADS OUT OR ALL WHITE ANGLO SAXON PROTESTANT NATIONS ARE DOOMED.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-21434013522256992092012-02-12T17:30:56.404-07:002012-02-12T17:30:56.404-07:00I don’t understand such harsh rejection of Barton’...I don’t understand such harsh rejection of Barton’s work. Before I ever heard of Barton I collected pages of quotes by our founders from Brainy Quote and other sources that appear to support what Barton says so I don’t see what is so “ridiculous” about Barton’s claim. Apart from that: Do you believe that the books and other documents that Barton shows and claims to have are phony and don’t say what he says that they say? I support healthy skepticism but I think that your comments go beyond that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-29279186731775091542011-10-01T19:38:41.131-06:002011-10-01T19:38:41.131-06:00Oh, kudos to Lindsey for starting such a lively de...Oh, kudos to Lindsey for starting such a lively debate. <a href="http://sharing-filez.blogspot.com/2011/07/mobil-keluarga-terbaik-di-indonesia.html" rel="nofollow">Mobil Keluarga Terbaik di Indonesia</a> <a href="http://sharing-filez.blogspot.com/2011/09/pulauweb-web-hosting-murah-indonesia.html" rel="nofollow">Pulauweb Web Hosting Murah Indonesia</a> <a href="http://sharing-filez.blogspot.com/2011/08/adiraasuransikendaraanterbaikindonesia.html" rel="nofollow">Adira Asuransi Kendaraan Terbaik Indonesia</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-62025307884129244812011-09-25T03:40:50.163-06:002011-09-25T03:40:50.163-06:00There is no doubt that he is pushing an agenda rat...There is no doubt that he is pushing an agenda rather than simply researching for historical truth and nothing more.Mobil Keluarga Terbaik di Indonesiahttp://sharing-filez.blogspot.com/2011/07/mobil-keluarga-terbaik-di-indonesia.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-71792141075139248672011-04-08T23:06:29.540-06:002011-04-08T23:06:29.540-06:00I understand the arguement against Mr. Barton has ...I understand the arguement against Mr. Barton has been waged based on historical integrity. So beit. He gets a D in Historiography. There is no doubt that he is pushing an agenda rather than simply researching for historical truth and nothing more. However I wish to throw a bit of a twist in this debate. I contend Barton is wrong not for his historical opinions, but rather on what most would call theological grounds, but I would simply say on scriptural grounds. I will leave it at that and let those who may still be viewing this blog to ask questions or contend with this. To make it most clear; Mr. Barton is wrong on a scriptual basis. 's greatest sin is that he is wrong on a scriptural basis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-58704108734397259962010-08-27T02:59:12.929-06:002010-08-27T02:59:12.929-06:00Have to add a comment on OFT's post of 05-28-0...Have to add a comment on OFT's post of 05-28-08:<br /><br />"when a founder assents to the bible as authority, and approves the supernatural, it isn't wrong to call them orthodox Christians."<br /><br />This is a good example of the ideas by which Barton falsifies our faith. No one's "an orthodox Christian" except by confessing Jesus Christ.<br /><br />Dr. Benjamin Rush gives a good example of that: "My only hope of salvation is in the infinite transcendant love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross."<br />(1948 edition "The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush," p. 166)<br /><br />No doubt Washington "assented" to the Bible, and "approved" the supernatural. You can search his papers online at the Library of Congress site and the University of Virginia site (about 200,000 documents total) without finding any kind of Christian confession. By his voluminous papers, any honest historian would be unable to produce evidence that Washington was a Christian at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-25083727860984450112010-08-27T02:22:46.017-06:002010-08-27T02:22:46.017-06:00Thanks for this encouraging post, and the comments...Thanks for this encouraging post, and the comments here. I'm fresh from a committee meeting (of the vibrant, believing church I attend) trying to present corrective historical documentation against some of Barton's claims made in "America's Godly Heritage," which was recently shown at church.<br /><br />I think it ultimately comes down simply to the fact that Jesus said He IS truth; and we have a scriptural mandate to "test the spirit" of teachers to see if they're coming from His Spirit, or that of (the one Jesus called) "the father of lies."<br /><br />It grieves me that this man is teaching a false history of our country. I mourn for the American Church, that the lies and partisan enmity Barton ministers are so readily embraced as "Christian." Barton falsifies our history: worse, he falsifies our faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-37070476861199556332010-04-21T07:36:32.746-06:002010-04-21T07:36:32.746-06:00About 50% of these tea-partiers are on-board with ...About 50% of these tea-partiers are on-board with Barton's ideology, so it's pretty much right there in our face right now. All history aside, the First Amendment is under attack and I think people, especially the History academia, need to wake up and start talking more about this guy.<br /><br />Science has been under attack for years now... well, evolution, has. They don't seem to have a problem with gravitational theory or quantum theory or any other theory but evolution –one can only guess why. The difference is that the scientific community as a whole has been very vocal in bringing the "Intelligent Design" proponents into the spotlight and examining them for what they truly are. Never mind the impact Kitzmiller v. Dover had on national awareness of this battle for the minds of our children. Scientists have done an admirable job of standing up to frauds, of course we have our own validation process through peer review, so anything not submitted to peer review automatically throws up a red flag with us. But, we really need to see a more motivated effort from History academia. This, "I'll give Barton consideration once I get around to reading him" is just not going to cut it. The man's out there propagandizing his way into the mind of Americans and now, through the pulpit of Glenn Beck. It really is time to start mobilizing academics against this type of misinformation.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14911251039892163499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-60373437526428775512010-04-19T12:29:02.302-06:002010-04-19T12:29:02.302-06:00As a scientist, I might can lend a different persp...As a scientist, I might can lend a different perspective to this discussion. Feeling as though Barton has been given his fair due, I cannot overlook the half-truths, omissions and falsifications myself and others have found in his assertions. I am not going to argue over these as they have been covered ad nauseum here and elsewhere. His intent seems rather clear to me, as his general audience are the credulous and incredibly naive fundamentalists who would love nothing more than to abolish separation of church and state for their own selfish reasons. Little do they understand the freedoms they've enjoyed due to that same amendment. <br /><br />Barton, as he sees it, has uncovered "the truth" and it's had such a mobilizing effect on him that he has what.... kept it between himself and the fundamentalists? I have never seen the man stand and debate his revelations with other (I use the term lightly) Historians or proponents of separation of church and state. What should this tell us? <br /><br />If I were to find something that discredits our understanding of say, Newtonian physics, I'd submit my work and meet the world of academia head-on! Barton on the other hand, has found a very comfortable home (not to mention the living) in the churches and in talking to people who agree with his point of view, as it bolsters their own political & religious agendas.<br /><br />You need only open your eyes to stop blindness. <br /><br />Founding Fathers as "Christian" or not, this is no longer a Christian nation, it is a nation of many denominations and no-belief at all and to intermingle religion and government will only result in the oppression of civil rights and our Founders knew this all too well.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14911251039892163499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-10408280909907079492008-09-04T21:59:00.000-06:002008-09-04T21:59:00.000-06:00This is an interesting thread. Much of the problem...This is an interesting thread. Much of the problem is that there was a heavy Christian influence in the founding of our nation; but the founding was not a Christian endeavor. This is why we have many references to "God" or "divine providence" in the writings of founders, but little discussion of Jesus Christ. If our founding documents or the writing of founding fathers are to be Christian, then the Jesus must be named; or at least Scriptural references must be made. <BR/>As a Christian, I wish that all our founding documents were clearly Christian; much as the Mayflower Compact was. But the simple truth is that deism is not Christianity, and our documents are deistic, at best, regardless of the Christian influence present.<BR/>Barton has some good materials. I've enjoyed them. But I also grow weary of him giving early America such a heavy Christian character as to lead us to believe that every day in the street was like a day at church. He simply takes it to far. <BR/>On the other hand, he has brought back some of the ideas and character of our revolution that had been lost and perhaps rewritten by reconstructionists who dismiss God on all fronts.J Keith Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03011827509315184230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-82135269714545673032008-08-12T11:39:00.000-06:002008-08-12T11:39:00.000-06:00I just had to chime in to your "critique" of David...I just had to chime in to your "critique" of David Barton. You claim to be critiquing Barton's book "America's Godly Heritage," yet this title is not so much a book, but a transcription of the video of the same name (actually it's the one that you've posted as an 'additional' example of Barton's methods). The reviews you link to (which are both the same reviews, BTW) are critiquing the video, citing lack of citations as lack of credibility. Well, duh, show me a video that cites its sources as accurately as a scholarly work does and I'll show you a paperweight. The video MEDIUM is not conducive to such accuracy, if watchability is desired! However, Barton does cite some original sources (Records of Congress, NE Primer, Locke's Treatises on Government) to back up his points. <BR/><BR/>So, as it should, this video merely serves to whet the appetite of the inquisitive in the hope that they will read Barton's other titles, such as "Original Intent" and "Separation of Church and State" which (despite the concise nature of the latter title) are copiously noted. Barton's baiting you to go look for yourself at the original documents. It's all there. He cites his sources because he's confident in his conclusions. <BR/><BR/>If you want to tear him down don't only give us someone else's quotes to the contrary; you must also prove Barton's alleged overstatements and inaccuracies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-89200116989770199592008-06-21T10:36:00.000-06:002008-06-21T10:36:00.000-06:00You are an extremist, if I understand your point o...You are an extremist, if I understand your point of view correctly and perhaps David Barton appears to be one too. The man is just trying to show the Christian values of the men that framed and wrote the Constitution. If those framers were here today, they would completely and utterly refute the abuse of power displayed by the judicial branch of government and the way it has written law from the bench that is neither voted on or by the people. The framers were extremists as well trying to go to an extreme to prevent the abuses they had witnessed in Europe where the church had authority to rule through police type action. We should all be free to find God and worship as we please without fear of retribution or discrimination and that is what they were trying to avoid, which is why they separated the church from the state. But to remove God from the history of this world and science is unconscionable and has produced a generation of renegade teenagers that have zero minus minus moral compass. The only religion taught is one of negativity and yet another extreme.<BR/><BR/>Veraverandoughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13842782295553627712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-52844986902500812142008-06-12T12:56:00.000-06:002008-06-12T12:56:00.000-06:00THIS IS THE FOUNDING STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATE...<B>THIS IS THE FOUNDING STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:</B><BR/>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."<BR/>.<BR/>Where is the reference to the Bible in that statement?<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-32996847414689525372008-06-11T13:07:00.000-06:002008-06-11T13:07:00.000-06:00Lindsey,I am not sure how familiar you are with Ba...Lindsey,<BR/><BR/>I am not sure how familiar you are with Barton's work itself. It seems to me that you are taking most of your information from reviews and editorials about Barton and his work. The reason I say this is because you say that Barton's work <I>America's Godly Heritage</I> is a book, when it is actually a video. I think that if you were familiar with Barton's work itself (take a look at his book Original Intent), your criticism would not be so harsh; he relies on and quotes the Founders' own writings more than any other historian or biographer of the Founding Fathers I have ever read. Then glance at his bibliography. Any objective reader would conclude that he has certainly done some real research, and that he relies upon primary resources, not "biased" books by other people of the same beliefs as himself.<BR/><BR/><I>he states that 52 of the 55 signers to the Declaration of Independence were "orthodox" or "evangelical Christians." Are you kidding me???</I><BR/><BR/>OK, several problems right away. This first one is probably a typo, but in light of what I am going to say next, it is important: 55 men did not sign the Declaration; 56 men did. 55 men attended the Constitutional Convention, and Barton was talking about the signers of the Constitution (see the rebuttal you linked to afterwards).<BR/><BR/>And speaking of that rebuttal, here is how it "rebutts" Barton's claim. The substance of the rebuttal was basically a quote from Clinton Rossiter, which began, "Although it had its share of strenuous Christians..."<BR/><BR/>THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT BARTON WAS SAYING!!! Some rebuttal. Rossiter goes on to lessen the number considerably, but without using any primary resources or quotations to prove his point -- <B>this is exactly what the author of the rebuttal was accusing Barton of!</B> This is very hypocritical, I'm sorry, but it is. Please tell my why the point-blank claim of one historian is automatically better than the point-blank claim of another historian.<BR/><BR/>I think you should read at least one of David Barton's books, and check out the claims for yourself, based on primary resources, not contemporary reviews. After reading Barton and other historians, I think his credibility rate is far higher. I also think that too many times, secular scholars get by with a whole lot more baggage, but they always lash out at Barton when he says something that they disagree with. Take a look at this excerpt from a book by two distinguished scholars R. L. Moore and Isaac Kramnick. This is how their "note on sources" at the end of their famous book <A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=GJ-hECwrCvwC&pg=PA24&dq=our+godless+constitution&sig=B15O4wHS_V--_PGO3b-4_Bh6nck#PPA179,M1" REL="nofollow">"The Godless Constitution"</A> begins:<BR/><BR/>"Because we have intended the book to reach a general audience, and also because the material we have cited is for the most part familiar to historians and political scientists, we have dispensed with the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes." <BR/><BR/>!!!!! Did you just see that??? They basically said, "We don't think that it's all that important that we list our sources; after all, many scholars are familiar with this information, and this book is meant for the general public [implying that all the general public needs is the work of scholars, not where those scholars got their information]. So, we didn't take the time to present our sources." The authors then listed some modern books by contemporary historians; no primary resources!<BR/><BR/>I call that brazen arrogance and hypocrisy. So don't everyone come along Barton-bashing. Do your own homework.Hercules Mulliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359315762800176142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-78726985251697257722008-06-02T19:43:00.000-06:002008-06-02T19:43:00.000-06:00History as driven by political agendas is dangerou...History as driven by political agendas is dangerous. The facts are often skewed to reach a predetermined conclusion or chosen to reflect a particular point-of-view. A fact that I can appreciate, particularly with Ellis, is that he lays out his method or even discusses bias or his own views which affect the historical narrative that he is presenting. "Historians" with an agenda do not, they simply soldier through their presentation of their "historical truth".<BR/> Obviously the contributors to this blog as well as most of the readers are scholarly enough to recognize a bias within a historical work. I teach my students to do this early, with our textbooks. I even tell them that I am teaching United States history as I understand it. They are welcome to challenge me, if they know their stuff. Otherwise, it is U.S. history according to Mr. MabryDavid Mabryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261259862668271212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-5150385824468735972008-06-02T12:20:00.000-06:002008-06-02T12:20:00.000-06:00Quick question...Are we saying that anyone who is ...Quick question...<BR/><BR/>Are we saying that anyone who is driven by an agenda or who has, on occasion, over-reached should be dismissed as "dangerous" and/or "bogus"?<BR/><BR/>That seems to be the standard that Lindsey, Jonathan, Raven, and others are applying to David Barton.<BR/><BR/>I just want to be clear on the standard, and make sure everyone here is comfortable applying that SAME standard across the board to others. <BR/><BR/>Let's be clear. And let's be consistent. Fair?Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-90113593623560052522008-06-01T01:02:00.000-06:002008-06-01T01:02:00.000-06:00I was never at Mr. Madison's but once, and then ou...I was never at Mr. Madison's but once, and then our conversation took such a turn--though not designed on my part--as to call forth some expressions and arguments which left the impression on my mind that his creed was not strictly regulated by the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Yeah -- that's some testimony to Madison's "orthodoxy.".<BR/><BR/>I agree with that, what was the date of this event?<BR/><BR/>Refute the content, not mistakes in typing.<BR/><BR/>OFTOur Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-885301207430733982008-05-31T14:05:00.000-06:002008-05-31T14:05:00.000-06:00Oh, kudos to Lindsey for starting such a lively de...Oh, kudos to Lindsey for starting such a lively debate.David Mabryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261259862668271212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-7023941104706235792008-05-31T13:55:00.000-06:002008-05-31T13:55:00.000-06:00Now for another perspective, the founders were int...Now for another perspective, the founders were intelligent to leave religion out of the political sphere. They had enough trouble asserting their political rights and legally justifying a break with Great Britain. Our Founding Fathers were quite aware of how religious strife had torn Europe apart for centuries and was transported to our shores in the early stages of colonization, i.e. the French Huegonots and the Spanish Catholic massacres in Florida. The Jamestown site itself was chosen primarily for fear of Spanish attack.<BR/> Now, trying to paint these brilliant men into one particular denominational faith with such a broad brush will not work. Simply because a person claims Christianity as their faith does not make them an "orthodox". I will admittedly claim little knowledge of the minds of the founders on their own personal religious beliefs. I believe that no one can claim to have that knowledge. In fact, many of them may have left their views out of their public papers simply for strife that it may cause. What I do believe is that these brilliant men of thought were making their own faith journeys and reconciling their consciences with their faith. Even today all Baptist or Church of Christ communities may not necessarily conform to all of the tenets of their particular denomination. I visited several of these faith communities that were very different. It is safe to assume that the same could be said about the founders. <BR/> Is this making sense? A Unitarian stance may be safer to asuume, though, when it comes to tis group of men, as the British learned, it is not safe to make assumptions or to label them particularly.David Mabryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261259862668271212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-54741366766812812702008-05-31T13:28:00.000-06:002008-05-31T13:28:00.000-06:00His preeminent 19th century historian Ralph Ketcha...<I>His preeminent 19th century historian Ralph Ketcham, as well as his 18th century historian.</I><BR/><BR/>I think I'll go with the interpretation of the chief of the manuscript division of the Library of Congress as opposed to someone who doesn't even know how to properly date centuries.<BR/><BR/>And by the way, Bishop Meade, a 19TH Century historian, had the following to say about Madison:<BR/><BR/><I>I was never at Mr. Madison's but once, and then our conversation took such a turn--though not designed on my part--as to call forth some expressions and arguments which left the impression on my mind that his creed was not strictly regulated by the Bible.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah -- that's some testimony to Madison's "orthodoxy."Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-22553420026003349652008-05-31T13:18:00.000-06:002008-05-31T13:18:00.000-06:00"what aggravates me about the religious right (and..."what aggravates me about the religious right (and Barton in particular) is the fact that SERIOUS scholarly inquiry and discovery are completely rejected in the name of "Christian" values. Facts are often distorted, ignored or even altered simply to "fit" a particular agenda or belief. This sentiment of theological arrogance, which is used to trump sincere intellectual inquiry is one of the main reasons why so many in the mainstream community have a problem with the religious right today."<BR/><BR/>Interesting comment. Don't you think it would be wise to keep this in mind when looking at the development of Christianity or even when considering the historicity of the Bible?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09839313899950207166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-45889999171903355642008-05-31T13:16:00.000-06:002008-05-31T13:16:00.000-06:00Madison was going to be a minister, and contrary t...Madison was going to be a minister, and contrary to what Hutson says, his mind wasn't changed two months later, because he decided at Christmas to go the Synod.><BR/><BR/>Hutson got his dates wrong. The Go in the cause of Christ quote was in Sept 1773. There is no evidence he had a heartfelt change of mind into politics, but that his hand was forced by the community and his family, supported by his continued interest in religious matters of the Synod in May 1774. His dad was the head of the correspondence team in his county. <BR/><BR/>There needs to be more smoking guns to claim Madison was not orthodox, of which, there is none.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.com