BREAKING: Carney's BRUTAL Anti-Trump Speech Gets Standing Ovation at UN—Trump RAGES |Buffett Respond

So Mark Carney just delivered a speech at the United Nations General Assembly that received a standing ovation from 171 delegations.Not polite applause, not a diplomatic courtesy clap, a four -minute standing ovation where virtually every nation on Earth rose to its feet except three, the United States, Russia, and North Korea.And the photograph of those three delegations sitting together side by side in silence while the rest of the world stood is now on the front page of every major newspaper on the planet.Donald Trump called an emergency press conference to respond.It was scheduled for three minutes.It lasted 47.

By the end, his own communications director was physically signaling him to stop.He didn't.

And every additional minute made things catastrophically worse.Not for Carney, not for Canada, but for the United States.Warren Buffett watched both the speech and the press conference and said one was a master class in strategic communication, and the other was, in his words, the most expensive 47 minutes in American diplomatic history.Then he explained why Trump's response didn't just fail, it proved Carney's entire argument on camera, in real time, in front of the entire world.But here's the line that will define this moment.Seven words Carney said directly into the camera, standing at the United Nations podium, addressed to every democracy on earth, that are now being carved into the political vocabulary of this century.

When you hear what he said, why it made the Chinese delegation applaud a Western leader for the first time in UN history, and what Trump said behind closed doors when he saw the standing ovation, you'll understand why this isn't just the worst week in American diplomacy.It may be the moment American moral authority died.Hit subscribe because this crisis is accelerating faster than anyone predicted.

Let me take you through how we got here, because the context transforms the speech from powerful to devastating.Three weeks before Carney took that podium, Donald Trump stood in the White House briefing room and publicly demanded that the democratically elected Prime Minister of Canada resign.not over a policy disagreement, not as a negotiating tactic.He explicitly stated that the United States would refuse to engage diplomatically with Canada until Carney was removed and replaced with someone, in Trump's words, who actually wants to work with America.

Behind the scenes, it was worse.Reports confirmed that Trump had instructed the U .S.ambassador to communicate to Canadian opposition contacts that trade normalization was contingent on a leadership change.American lobbyists in Ottawa approached Canadian business leaders suggesting that replacing Carney would unlock economic relief.It was a coordinated campaign to engineer regime change in a G7 democracy, not through military force, not through covert operations, but through economic coercion and political manipulation.

Canada's response was immediate and total.Parliament passed a unanimous sovereignty resolution, 338 votes to zero.Canada suspended all energy exports to the United States, oil, gas, electricity, all of it.

Canada severed diplomatic relations for the first time in 158 years.Carney stood in the House of Commons, looked into the camera, and said five words that detonated across every front page in the democratic world, I don't work for you.That was three weeks ago.The energy suspension was already crippling American border states.Diplomatic channels were dark.43 nations had formally condemned Trump's demand.

And then the United Nations General Assembly session opened.A session that had been scheduled months in advance, but was now dominated by a single question that every delegation understood would define the future of the international order.Can the most powerful democracy on earth dictate who leads other democracies?And if it can, what does the word democracy even mean anymore?

Carney requested a speaking slot.Normally, Canada's General Assembly address is a mid -tier event.Respectful attention, polite applause, quickly forgotten, not this time.When word spread that Carney intended toaddress the confrontation with the United States directly from the UN podium, the chamber filled to capacity for the first time in years.Delegations that typically sent junior diplomats sent their ambassadors.

Fourteen heads of state who were not scheduled to attend flew in specifically for the speech.The UN Press Gallery issued three times the normal number of credentials.Everyone understood that what was about to happen in that room would be quoted for decades.The only question was whether Carney would match the moment.

The setting matters.The General Assembly Hall is designed to make every speaker feel the weight of what they're saying.193 seats arranged in a vast arc.The green marble podium, elevated so the speaker faces the entire world simultaneously.The gold UN emblem behind them.It is the closest thing the modern world has to a global stage where every nation is theoretically equal.

And it was in that room, at that podium, under that emblem, that the prime minister of a country of 38 million people was about to publicly challenge the president of a country of 330 million and win.But before I take you through what Carney said, you need to understand what was happening behind the scenes, because what Trump did in the hours before the speech reveals exactly why the response went so catastrophically wrong.Trump's team had advanced intelligence on the general themes of Carney's speech.

They knew it would be confrontational.They knew it would reference the resignation demand.And their strategy, developed by the National Security Council and the White House communications team, was deliberate and calculated.

Ignore it.Let Carney speak.Issue no formal response.Treat the speech as irrelevant.The logic was sound in theory.

Responding to the speech would elevate it, and ignoring it would signal that the United States considered Canada's complaints beneath its attention.Trump personally overruled that strategy the morning of the speech.According to three people briefed on the conversation, he told his chief of staff, I'm not going to sit here and let that guy lecture me at the UN.Nobody lectures me.His staff tried to talk him out of responding publicly.They

They failed.The compromise was supposed to be a brief statement, three minutes pre -written, dismissive in tone, calling the speech disappointing and reaffirming America's position.That script was written.It was loaded into the teleprompter and it was never delivered.Not a single word of it.Because Trump watched the speech live.

He watched the standing ovation live.And something broke.

Now let me explain why this speech as a strategic act, as a moment in diplomatic history, is different from everything that came before.Every previous move in this confrontation was bilateral.Canada versus the United States.Tariffs?Counter tariffs?Energy suspensions?

Diplomatic severance?Devastating, yes.Unprecedented, yes.

But fundamentally, a conflict between two countries that the rest of the world could observe from a safe distance, offering support and condemnation, but never having to choose a side publicly, formally, on the record.Carney's decision to deliver this speech at the United Nations transformed a bilateral conflict into a global referendum on democratic sovereignty.He didn't just take the fight to a bigger stage.He changed the nature of the fight entirely.In the House of Commons, I don't work for you was a message from Canada's prime minister to America's president.

At the United Nations, the question became universal.Does any nation get to dictate the leadership of any other nation?The answer to that question determines the entire architecture of the international order.and by forcing every delegation to answer it publicly in that chamber by standing or remaining seated, Carney turned a dispute about Canadian sovereignty into a vote on the principle of sovereignty itself.

Every nation that stood was answering no.No country gets to choose another country's leader, not even the United States, especially not the United States.International law scholars recognized immediately what Carney had done.A Princeton professor of international relations called it the most sophisticated diplomatic maneuver at the United Nations since the SuezCrisis, using the General Assembly not as a forum for complaint, but as a mechanism for collective judgment.A former U .

N.undersecretary said, Carney understood something that most leaders never grasp.The United Nations isn't powerful because of its institutions.It's powerful because of its symbolism.

And he used that symbolism to isolate the most powerful nation on Earth.

A Georgetown professor of strategic communications put it more bluntly.Carney turned the General Assembly into a courtroom.He was the prosecutor.Trump was the defendant.And 171 countries delivered the verdict before Trump even opened his mouth.NATO allies had been coordinating behind the scenes for weeks, and their preparation reveals how deeply the democratic world was invested in this moment.

France's president had spoken with Carney four times in the days before the speech, offering specific language suggestions and promising that France would be among the first delegations to stand.Germany's chancellor issued a pre -speech statement of solidarity.the UK Prime Minister, in a carefully calibrated move, sent Britain's Foreign Secretary to attend in person rather than leaving it to the permanent representative, a diplomatic signal that London considered this a matter of the highest importance.Japan's Prime Minister, in what analysts called an extraordinary departure from Tokyo's traditional diplomatic caution, personally called Carney to express support and to confirm that Japan would stand.

These weren't spontaneous reactions.This was a coordinated democratic response, planned in advance, designed to produce exactly the visual that the world saw.Virtually every democracy on earth, standing together against the principle that one nation can dictate another's leadership.And here's the irony that Trump never saw coming.The irony that transformed Carney from a national leader into a global figure.Before the UN speech, Carney was Canada's prime minister, a respected figure in international finance.

Certainly.A leader who had demonstrated strategic brilliance in his handling of the trade war, absolutely, but his profile was fundamentally national.

He was Canada's leader dealing with Canada's crisis.The rest of the world was sympathetic, supportive, but watching from a distance.

By delivering this speech at the United Nations, Carney became something entirely different.He became the voice of every democracy that has ever worried about American overreach, the voice of every small nation that has ever felt the pressure of a larger neighbor, the voice of every leader who has ever wondered whether Washington would accept the result of their election.He gave language to a fear that dozens of countries have felt for decades but have been too diplomatically cautious or too economically dependent to express publicly.And the standing ovation wasn't just for the speech.It was for the permission, permission to say publicly what many of these nations had been thinking privately for years, that American power, unchecked by American respect for democratic principles, is not a force for stability.

It is a threat to sovereignty.Trump tried to diminish Carney by calling for his resignation.

Instead, he created the conditions for Carney to stand at the most visible podium on earth and speak for the entire democratic world.The man Trump wanted removed from office is now the most prominent defender of democratic sovereignty on the planet.And Trump did that to himself.And then Carney spoke.The chamber was full.Every seat occupied, the galleries packed, the press gallery overflowing.

Carney walked to the podium with the same measured stride that had characterized his every public appearance.No rush, no performance of emotion.He placed his notes on the lectern.He looked out at 193 delegations.And then he did something subtle that diplomats noticed immediately.He closed his folder.

He spoke without notes for the next 23 minutes.He opened by addressing the Assembly not as a Canadian leader, but as a citizen of the democratic world.

I stand here to speak about something larger, something that belongs to every nation in this chamber, something that no trade agreement, no military alliance, and no economic relationship can be allowed to override.I stand here to speak about the right of free people to choose their own leaders.

" His voice was steady, controlled, but there was something underneath the control, a current of conviction that made every sentence feel weighted with purpose.Three weeks ago, the President of the United States publicly demanded my resignation.

He stated on camera that the United States would refuse diplomatic engagement with Canada until I was removed from office and replaced with a leader more acceptable to Washington.He paused.Let the silence carry the weight.Let me say that again.So every delegation in this chamber understands exactly what occurred.The leader of one democracy publicly demanded the removal of the democratically elected leader of another democracy.

Not because of a crime.Not because of a constitutional violation.Because I refused to submit to his trade demands.because I would not accept terms that would make Canada an economic dependency of the United States, because I said no.He turned slightly, not quite toward the American delegation, but enough that the camera angle included them in the frame.The president framed this as a bilateral dispute, a trade disagreement between neighbors.

But every person in this room understands what it actually was.It was a test, a test of whether the most powerful nation on earth can override democratic elections when the results are inconvenient.a test of whether sovereignty is a right or a privilege granted by Washington, a test of whether the international order built after the Second World War, built on the principle that nations choose their own governments, still holds, or whether we've entered an era where one country's approval is required before another country's election results are considered legitimate.The chamber was silent, not the polite silence of diplomatic attention, the loaded silence of recognition, of leaders hearing their own fears spoken,aloud for the first time.Carney continued, and his voice hardened, I want to address the nations in this room who are not surprised by what I'm describing.

The nations of Latin America, who have endured decades of American interference in their elections, their governments, their democratic processes.The nations of the Middle East, of Southeast Asia, of Africa, who have watched the United States overthrow governments, install compliant leaders, and then lecture the world about democratic values.You are not surprised.You have lived this.The only thing that is new is the target.For the first time, the target is a G7 nation, a NATO ally, a Five Eyes partner.

And now, perhaps for the first time, the nations who have always been protected by their proximity to American power understand what the nations on the other side of that power have always known, that when power is unchecked by principle, no one is safe.

No one.

A murmur passed through the chamber.Several Latin American delegations began nodding visibly.Brazil's ambassador turned to Argentina's ambassador and said something that neither microphone caught, but that cameras recorded.

Carney's tone shifted.Still controlled, but warmer now, more personal.Speaking not as a strategist, but as a citizen.Democracy is not a gift that powerful nations bestow upon weaker ones.Democracy is not a system that requires the approval of the powerful to function.Democracy is the right of every people in every nation to choose their own path, even when that path displeases Washington.

even when that path disrupts American interests, even when that path produces leaders who refuse to be managed, refuse to be intimidated, and refuse to be removed on command.

And then the moment Carney looked directly into the camera, not at the delegations, not at the assembly president, into the camera and spoke seven words with a quiet finality that left no room for ambiguity.We will never ask your permission again.Silence.Two full seconds.Then the sound started, not a sudden eruption, but a rising wave.The French delegation stood first, then Germany, then Japan, then the entire European bloc, then Latin America, then Africa, then Asia.

Row by row, delegation by delegation, 171 nations rising to their feet.The sound built from a murmur to a roar.Four minutes and 37 seconds.Three delegations remained seated.The United States, Russia, North Korea, And the photograph taken from the upper gallery showing those three delegations in their seats while the world stood around them was on every front page within the hour.

Within two hours, We Will Never Ask Your Permission Again was trending in 94 countries.Within four hours, it had been translated into every official UN language and was being quoted by heads of state on four continents.International media called it the seven words that redefined the global order.

And then Trump responded, and every strategic instinct his team had tried to impose on the moment collapsed in real time.The emergency press conference was announced within minutes of the speech ending.The prepared script was three minutes of measured dismissal, calling the speech unfortunate and reaffirming America's commitment to fair trade relationships with all partners.That script existed.It was written by professionals.It was loaded into the teleprompter.

Trump read the first sentence and a half.Then he looked up.And for the next 45 minutes, he spoke without notes, without strategy, and without the ability to stop himself.Carney is a failed leader of a failed country, he began.

Nobody respects Canada.Nobody takes Canada seriously.This is a country that can't survive without the United States, and everybody knows it.Everybody.He returned to this point, Canada's dependence on America, repeatedly, nine times in 47 minutes, each time louder, each time less coherent.They need us.

We don't need them.They've always needed us.Their whole economy is us.Without us, they're nothing.

By minute 15, she was visibly gesturing for him to wrap up.He didn't acknowledge her.By minute 20, two senior aides had left the room.Later reporting revealed they went to the chief of staff's office and said, The chief of staff reportedly replied, At minute 23, he pivoted to personal attacks on Carney's background, his years at the Bank of England, his Goldman Sachs career, his British -Canadian dual identity.He's not even fully Canadian, Trump said.

He spent half his career in London working for Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs.And now he's lecturing us about sovereignty?Give me a break.The attack backfired in real time.Journalists in the briefing room began exchanging glances.

The idea that someone's career abroad disqualifies them from democratic leadership was precisely the kind of argument Carney had just warned the world about.A foreign president deciding who is and isn't a legitimate leader based on criteria that have nothing to do with how that leader was elected.The most damaging moment came at minute 31.A reporter asked whether demanding Carney's resignation was consistent with democratic values.Trump's response was immediate and unfiltered.When a leader is bad for his country and Carney is very bad for Canada, very bad, it's appropriate for other leaders to say so.

We say it about dictators all the time.What's the difference?A reporter followed up, are you comparing yourself to the leaders who pressure dictators?

Trump paused for three seconds, the only pause in the entire press conference, then said, I'm saying leadership is leadership.Some people can handle it and some people can't.Carney can't.What's the difference?

Those three words comparing his demand that a Democratic ally's leader resign to international pressure on dictators were being quoted by every foreign ministry on earth within the hour.The French foreign minister issued a statement calling the commentsa revelation of how the current American administration views its relationship with democratic allies.Germany's foreign minister said, the president of the United States just told us that he sees no difference between pressuring a dictator and pressuring a democracy.We should believe him.Japan's foreign ministry, normally careful to avoid direct criticism of Washington, issued a rare public statement noting that the comparison raises profound concerns about the American commitment to the principles of the democratic alliance.

The press conference achieved something Carney's speech alone could not have.The speech argued that American power unchecked was a threat to democratic sovereignty.The press conference proved it.In real time, on camera, in Trump's own words, Carney had made the case intellectually.Trump made it viscerally.Every undecided foreign ministry, every cautious diplomat, every allied government that had been trying to stay neutral, They all watched Trump confirm everything Carney had just said about him.

The prosecutor rests.The defendant confesses.

Warren Buffett's response addressed something nobody else was focusing on, the strategic asymmetry between the two performances and what it reveals about the nature of power.In 70 years of business and 60 years of studying human behavior, Buffett said, I have never seen a more perfect illustration of the difference between strategic communication and reactive communication.And the difference is the entire difference between winning and losing.He started with Carney.23 minutes.No notes.

Every sentence constructed.Every pause intentional.Every word chosen to do maximum damage to the other side's position while making it impossible to attack the speaker without attacking democracy itself.That's not just a good speech.That's a strategic weapon.Carney didn't go to the U .

N.to express his feelings.He went to the U .N.to change the structure of the conflict permanently.And he did it in 23 minutes.

Then Trump.47 minutes.No script.No strategy.No objective other than the emotional need to respond to feelings.publicly humiliated.

Every minute he spoke, he weakened his own position.Every sentence confirmed what Carney had just argued about him.The press conference wasn't a response.It was a confession.

And the most damaging thing about it wasn't any single statement.It was the length.23 minutes versus 47 minutes.A man who knows exactly what he wants to say versus a man who can't stop talking.Discipline versus impulse.Strategy versus ego.

In any negotiation, in any conflict, in any boardroom, the person who can't stop talking is the person who has already lost because they're not communicating.They're compensating.

Buffett went deeper.I said after the resignation demand that the most dangerous thing in business or politics is to attack the other side's identity.What we just witnessed is the second most dangerous thing, losing control of your own narrative.Carney's speech created a story, a story about American overreach, about democratic sovereignty, about one leader standing up for a principle that belongs to every nation.

That was the story the world was going to tell.Trump had one job, don't make the story worse.Instead, he gave the world 47 minutes of material that made the story 10 times more powerful.He didn't rebut the narrative, he became the evidence for it.The Berkshire parallel was devastating.

I've watched CEOs respond to activist investor campaigns, public attacks on their leadership, their strategy, their competence.The CEOs who survive are the ones who respond with 30 seconds of calm confidence and then go back to work.The CEOs who don't survive are the ones who call a press conference and talk for an hour about how the activist is wrong.

And the company is great and everyone should trust them.Because the length of the response communicates insecurity.A confident leader doesn't need 47 minutes to respond to a 23 -minute speech.

A confident country doesn't need to shout nobody respects Canada nine times.Repetition is an emphasis.Repetition is panic.Buffett's closing cut to the core of the strategic realityCarney went to the United Nations and asked the world a simple question.Does one country get to choose another country's leader?

The world answered with a standing ovation.

Trump went to a press conference and told the world, yes I believe I should get to choose and I see no difference between pressuring a democracy and pressuring a dictatorship.That answer, in 47 minutes of unscripted rage, did more damage to American moral authority than any foreign adversary has achieved in 80 years of trying.

No enemy could have written a better script, and no advisor could have stopped him from delivering it.Buffett added one final observation that historians will likely reference for years.People ask me whether Trump can recover from this.The question misunderstands the situation.This isn't about recovery.

This is about revelation.The speech revealed what Carney believes.

The press conference revealed what Trump believes, and now the world knows both.You can recover from a mistake.You can recover from a miscalculation.You cannot recover from the world discovering what you actually think.

And what Trump actually thinks, that there is no difference between pressuring a democracy and pressuring a dictatorship, is now a matter of public record.Not alleged.Not inferred.Stated.On camera.In his own words.

That doesn't go away.

That becomes the lens through which every future American diplomatic action is interpreted.The fallout is cascading.And unlike the previous crises, it's not just economic or diplomatic, it's structural.The standing ovation and the photograph of three seated delegations have changed the way the world organizes itself.Within 72 hours of the speech, 26 nations announced formal reviews of their bilateral relationship with the United States.Not downgrades, reviews.

But the signal was unmistakable.

Countries that had been quietly absorbing American pressure were now publicly questioning whether the relationship served their sovereignty.The European Union announced an emergency summitspecifically to discuss, in the official agenda language, the implications of American democratic interference for European strategic autonomy.NATO's Secretary General issued a statement that was extraordinary in its careful construction, reaffirming the alliance's importance while noting that the alliance derives its strength from the voluntary commitment of sovereign democracies, and any action that calls the voluntary nature of that commitment into question undermines the alliance itself.Translation, if the United States pressures allied leaders to resign, the alliance is not an alliance anymore.

The energy suspension now in its fourth week continued to devastate American border states.Michigan declared a state of emergency.New York's governor held a press conference that captured the compounding absurdity.Three weeks ago, we were facing an energy crisis because our president told Canada to change its prime minister.Now we're facing an energy crisis because our president screamed at a press conference for 47 minutes about how Canada is nothing without us.Meanwhile, my residents can't heat their homes.

The gap between what's happening in Washington and what's happening in American households has never been wider, and it's never been more dangerous.

American business leaders, the CEOs, the investors, the trade associations were no longer asking the White House to fix the Canada crisis.They were asking the White House to stop making it worse.The Business Roundtable's chairman said publicly, The single most helpful thing the White House could do for American business right now is nothing.Say nothing.Do nothing.Stop responding.

Because every response is a gift to the other side.That statement from the chairman of America's most powerful business lobby was itself front -page news.The business establishment wasn't just frustrated, it was breaking with the White House openly and on the record.Domestically, the political fractures accelerated.

Seven Republican senators now publicly criticize the White House.the approach to Canada, up from three after the resignation demand.One, a senator from Michigan whose constituents were rationing heating fuel, said on the Senate floor, But what I watched at that press conference was not negotiation.

It was not strategy.It was not leadership.It was a man who couldn't stop talking because he couldn't stand being told no.

and my constituents are paying for it with their heating bills.Another Republican, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was more direct in private remarks that leaked within hours.The photograph of us sitting with Russia and North Korea while the entire democratic world stood, that photograph is going to be in textbooks, and it's going to be used to explain the moment America stopped being the leader of the free world because we chose to sit.Perhaps the most significant development was the quietest.Four allied nations.Nations whose names have not been publicly reported initiated back -channel conversations with Canada about restructuring intelligence -sharing arrangements to reduce dependence on American intelligence infrastructure.

The Five Eyes Framework, the Anglophone intelligence partnership that has been the bedrock of Western signals intelligence since the Second World War, was for the first time in its history being questioned not by an adversary, but by its own members.

Not loudly, not publicly, but the conversations were happening.and the fact that they were happening at all would have been unthinkable six months ago.

One intelligence official from an allied nation speaking anonymously put it with devastating simplicity.The question used to be whether we could trust American intelligence.Now the question is whether we can trust American judgment.Those are very different questions, and the second one is much harder to answer.

Meanwhile, Canada's economy, which every analyst had predicted would buckle under the pressure of confrontation with its largest trading partner, was showing unexpected resilience.The diversification strategy Carney had launched 18 months ago was beginning to produce results.European trade volumes with Canada had increased by 31 percent.Asian partnerships, particularly with Japan and South Korea, were accelerating.

Canadian energy exports to European markets facilitated by emergency infrastructure agreements were replacing a growing share of the revenue lost from the American suspension.Canada was not thriving.the economic pain was real.But the collapse that Washington had counted on, the economic breaking point that was supposed to turn Canadians against their Prime Minister, was not materializing.And with every week that passed without that collapse, the American leverage diminished further.So here's where we stand.

Mark Carney stood at the United Nations podium and delivered 23 minutes that transformed a bilateral dispute into a global reckoning with the nature of American power.171 nations stood.Three sat.The photograph is already iconic.Trump responded with 47 minutes of unscripted rage that confirmed every argument Carney had made about him, gifted the world a quote, what's the difference that will haunt American diplomacy for a generation, and left his own staff, his own party, and his own business establishment publicly questioning whether he is capable of managing the most important relationship in the Western Hemisphere.Buffett explained why the 47 minutes did more damage than any foreign adversary could have achieved, because the length was the message.

Discipline versus impulse.Strategy versus ego.A man who knows what he wants to say versus a man who can't stop talking.Can the United States rebuild moral authority after the photograph of three seated delegations becomes the defining image of this era?Can American alliances survive when the democratic world is beginning to question whether Washington respects the elections it claims to defend?

Can the intelligence -sharing frameworks that have kept the West secure for 80 years survive the quiet erosion of trust that is happening behind closed doors right now?And the question that should be askedeveryone, when 171 nations stand to applaud a speech about resisting American pressure, and only Russia and North Korea remain seated alongside the United States, what does that tell us about where America stands in the world it built?What does it tell us about the distance between who America says it is and what America has become?Trump tried to silence a leader.Instead, he gave that leader the most powerful microphone on earth.

He tried to make Carney irrelevant.Instead, he made him the voice of every democracy that has ever feared American overreach.He tried to prove that American power could override democratic sovereignty.

Instead, he proved that when you confuse dominance with leadership, you end up sitting with the only two countries on earth who agree with you, and neither of them is a democracy.

And Carney gave the world seven words that will outlast both their presidencies, seven words that 171 nations stood to affirm.Seven words that will be quoted long after both men are gone from public life.Seven words that every citizen of every democracy understood the moment they heard them.We will never ask your permission again.