The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Saturday, January 16, 2021

The Information Dark Ages Coming?


For John, BLUF:  If you harbor deviant thoughts you will be made to shut up.  Of course none of my Progressive relatives and friends believe this.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

  • Twitter permanently banned President Donald Trump due to “risk of further incitement of violence.”
  • For years, Campus Reform has covered professors who have openly encouraged or justified violence, many of whom were not banned or suspended from the platform.

From Campus Reform, by Reporter Jezzamine Wolk, 15 January 2021, 1:45 PM .

Here is the lede plus three:

In one of the latest crackdowns from Big Tech, President Donald Trump has been permanently banned from Twitter, and Parler has been cut off by Amazon Web Services, Apple and Google.  Tech companies have justified the censorship as the necessary course of action for Trump, his supporters, and conservatives due to the “risk of further incitement of violence.”

But, for years, Campus Reform has reported on leftist professor who have explicitly sent ill wishes to conservatives and Trump supporters and who have justified violence as a means of silencing those with whom they disagree.

In October, University of Virginia Instructor David Walsh tweeted that Americans need to do more than protest if the election “worst-case scenario” happens.

“They need to actively try to topple the government,” the tweet read.  The instructor who teaches the course "Hateinnany: Fascism, Antifascism, and the Global Far Right” had also previously tweeted that Democrats will have to utilize “postwar German practice of superficial de-Nazification” upon a Joe Biden win.

Yes, Big Tech, Academia, the Media and the Progressives wish to curate the news we view and hear.

And, Campus Reform had this headline, from a couple of days ago.

Duke profs suggest Biden pursue 'new laws' to combat 'misinformation'

A pair of Duke professors are calling on the incoming Biden administration to establish a new commission aimed at combatting "misinformation."

We could be in real trouble.  It looks like we are dependent upon the mood of Senator Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia.  I am hoping he is lean toward the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and not toward a Progressive curation of our information, such as Representative Sandy Cortez advocaters.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Friday, January 15, 2021

The Losers Want to fight Back


For John, BLUF:  Some want a third party and some want to act like 2020 Progressives, but the Serious Folks want to fight back, in a civil manner.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The Chicago Boyz, by Sgt. Mom, 13 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.  Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.  Thomas Paine, The Crisis No. I – December 1776
Frankly, it’s a time which try women’s souls, as well – not just being disenfranchised en masse, but having the Establishment News Presstitutes and the Tech Oligarchs gag all mention of conservative simmering unhappiness and discontent in the major media, and chopping off access to social media for designated so-called ‘thought criminals’ in response to a relatively benign – that is, relatively benign in comparison to what has been going on all year in cities that are prog strongholds – a massive protest at the US Capitol.  I’m fairly certain that the ruling political oligarchs had the snot scared out of them last Wednesday, when protestors overran the Capitol building.  Here’s my tiny violin to play “My Heart Bleeds For You”, and my dainty Victorian lace-trimmed linen handkerchief to sop up the tears.  (And BTW, one of those protesters was shot, fatally, by … well, er, someone, whose’ identity is yet unknown, prompting the observation that if he were a regular policeman and shot a protester of color in a prog-run city he would have his identity instantly spread all over the Presstitute Media, along with his home address, his spouses’ employer and the name of the school that his kids attended.  But never mind…)

Anyway, the massive steal of the 2020 election season is accomplished and blessed by the Presstitutes and the Tech Oligarch Media, this a process objected to by us Constitutional conservatives to no avail.  President Trump and his family and supporters are being unpersoned in job lots, people who went to the rally in Washington to protest the steal are being fired from their jobs and denounced by their families.  So, it remains now – what do we do now to make the filthy progs hurt metaphorically and economically, hurt until they bleed from every orifice?

I think, first withdraw our money and our eyeballs. Our money and eyeballs are about the only thing that we have left against the prog establishment.  This has been happening gradually over the last few months, but we’ll have to go full steam ahead now.  Professional sports orgs, who went all the way for BLM have seen viewership crash. Good.  Make them crash ever harder.  Right along with Twitter … whose stock price is already dropping.  I deactivated my own Twitter account yesterday.  I’ve always been a long-form blogger, anyway.

For those disaffected by the election outcome there is resignation, going off the deep end or, like Sgt Mom, the seeking of peaceful, but affirmative acts to show they are not cowed.  I applaud Sgt Mom.

There is more to this Blog Post, by Sgt "Long Form" Mom.  Click on it and read more.

Regards  —  Cliff

Thursday, January 14, 2021

Our Rep Voted to Impeach


For John, BLUF:  Our Congresswoman, Lori Trahan, is taking her duties very seriously, and before she voted to Impeach President Trump a Second Time she explained why.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is her justification, EMailed yesterday:
Later today, I will vote to impeach Donald Trump for incitement of insurrection.  I believe it’s my obligation to tell you why this step is necessary.

For more than two months, the President has used his platform as the leader of our nation to spread dangerous lies regarding the results of the 2020 presidential election.  He repeatedly used rhetoric designed to divide the American people and rile up his base.  And he even went so far as to pressure Georgia’s Secretary of State into finding votes to overturn their election results.

That alone was a despicable abuse of power.

But he didn’t stop there. President Trump spent weeks telling his supporters to flock to Washington to help overturn the will of the American people on January 6th, and when he addressed the crowd last Wednesday, he told them to go to the United States Capitol and “fight like hell” on his behalf.

Thousands of his supporters descended on the Capitol where they assaulted police officers, vandalized the building, hunted down elected officials they felt were disloyal to the President, and attacked our democracy.  In short, it was a failed insurrection, a failed attempt to overturn your votes and overthrow our government.

As I told you last week, the President bears direct responsibility for the attack and should have resigned that same evening.  Knowing that he would never willingly give up power, Vice President Pence should have invoked the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.

Since neither the President nor his Vice President are capable of putting the future of our Democracy ahead of their own political ambitions, I will vote today to impeach Donald Trump for inciting an insurrection.

My thoughts are here:
  1. I appreciate her openness regarding her Impeachment vote and her sense of duty to tell us.
  2. The President has maintained that he won and the election is stolen.  While the Media and Democrats tell us that such allegations are baseless, they don't seem baseless to me.  I am willing to believe that Joe Biden won fair and square, buit my sense is that there was voter fraud and that the use of the term "baseless" is baseless, given some of the things we have seen on video.  We need more nuance.
  3. Yes, the President has been telling those who voted for him that there was fraud and yes, he invited them to the Nation's Capitol to demostrate, as is their First Amendment Right.  The President's speech on 6 January didn't call for occupatoin of the Capitol Building.
  4. I am not sure about the numbers involved in the occupation of the Capitol Building, but thousands seems a little over the top.  While bad things happened, there were only two deaths, one on each side.  While people feared for their lives, there were no kidnappings or hangings.
  5. My understanding of the timeline is that the "assault" on the Capitol began before the President finished speaking on the Ellipse.  It is, per my computer map, 1.4 miles or a 31 minute walk.  What was going down was on track before the President's talk to the crowd on the Ellipse ended.  I don't see the President even casually provoking the actions on Capitol Hill.
  6. I support Vice President Pence in his decision to not invoke the 25th Amendment.  The President isn't derranged.
I commend Representative Trahan for her forthrightness and openness, but I think she drew some wrong conclusions from the events surrounding the 6th of January.  Further, I think she acted in haste in voting to Impeach the President.

If, subsequently, the facts show the President did not cause the Occupation of Capitol Hill, how will this Impeachment be walked back?

Regards  —  Cliff

Turnabout Fair Play


For John, BLUF:  Already a person is talking Impeachment of incoming President Biden.  Are we shocked?  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

Greene's comment came shortly after Trump was impeached for the second time

From Fox News, by Reporter Edmund DeMarche, 14 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the newly elected Republican from Georgia, took to Twitter Wednesday to announce that she will be filing articles of impeachment against President-elect Joe Biden a day after the inauguration.

She said her motivation is to stand up for the 75 million Americans who are "fed up with inaction" in government.

"It’s time to take a stand," she said.  "I’m proud to be the voice of Republican voters who have been ignored."

I wonder when Twitter will ban her?

Do none of the Congresscritters know the expression, "What goes around comes around?  Remember the former Senate Majority Leader from Searchlight, Nevada?  He didn't understand that and loosened Senate Rules and his successor followed suit and helped President Trump put more folks into Federal Judicial positions, including the US Supreme Court.

Hat tip to a Friend in Florida.

Regards  —  Cliff

Occupying Capitol Hill


For John, BLUF:  The saying (6P) is that "Prior Planning Prevents [] Poor Performance.  But, checking the Internet I find it has been updated to 7P, with the addition of Preparation, as in Prior Planning and Preparation Prevents....  Perhaps a certain degree of preparation was missing on 6 January in the District of Columbia.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

A Pentagon memo offers one version of events — six days of preparation for a rally that quickly spiraled out of control.

From Pro Publica, by Reporter Joshua Kaplan, 9 January 2021, 9:19 p.m. EST.

Here is the lede plus three:

President Donald Trump met with top military officials and gave his approval to activate the D.C. National Guard three days before he encouraged a mob of angry protesters to take their grievances to the U.S. Capitol.

A Pentagon memo released Friday offers these insights, as well as the first detailed timeline of the bungled law enforcement response to Wednesday’s insurrection.

The timeline shows that the planning started at least as far back as Dec. 31 and included discussion with select Cabinet members of the potential need for Pentagon reinforcements.

But it also leaves many questions unanswered, including why the U.S. Capitol Police declined repeated offers of assistance from military officials and the full extent of how much Trump knew about the security planning or was involved in decision-making.

There is a lot we don't know about the 6 january occupation of Capitol Hill.  Apparently one thing we do know is that people in Government were thinking about this and taking some steps to prepare.

For sure it was a tragic event, from several vectors.  I hope that one of the casualties is not truth itself.

UPDATE:  Here is a "timeline [is] intended to memorialize the planning and execution efforts of the Department of Defense to address the Violent Attack at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021."

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Wednesday, January 13, 2021

Chasing the White Whale


For John, BLUF:  We are going through a governmental spasm, triggered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The New Neo, 13 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

The charge is “incitement to insurrection.”  Which is appropriately Orwellian, since there was neither “incitement” (see this) nor an “insurrection” – except to the degree that any protest against the government that involves any violence at all could be labeled an insurrection.  You can find the legal definition of “insurrection” here and further explanation here.

There have been countless anti-government demonstrations by the left that have resulted in violence, both at the federal level in DC and at the state level all around the country.  No one has ever been charged with insurrection in connection with these events, as far as I know.  Protestors from the left have occupied the Capitol and the Senate offices, have disrupted the Kavanaugh hearings, have accosted Republican senators in the halls, have clashed with police in DC and set fires, have mobbed Republican office holders and threatened them as they left the Republican National Convention.  Leftist mobs have done even worse in states and cities around the country.  Has anyone who did this, or who actively encouraged them in any violence, ever been charged with insurrection or incitement to insurrection?  If they have been, I certainly haven’t read about it.

Nor should they be, in my opinion, because that sort of charge is a dangerous road to go down unless some very extreme conditions are met.  But the left has no trouble going down it in order to try to get Trump, even though there was nothing special that distinguishes what happened at the Capitol in terms of the amount of violence (broken windows, clashes with police).  In addition, although we know the aim was to protest and disrupt the vote to accept the electoral votes for Biden as president, that’s all we know.  They didn’t seem to be armed with guns and there’s no indication that the vast majority of even those who were physically fighting with police were intending anything other than a disruptive protest, which has certainly occurred before.  At any rate, not only did Trump not “incite” them to violence, he actually called for a peaceful demonstration.

It is a long post, but worth the time.  This action needs to be calmly understood, and we need to sort out the parts.  What has happened is that Speaker Pelosi has been willing to prevert our understanding of the Constitution and the law, ruining it for the rest of us.

To be clear, I think this Impeachment action is a misguided kneejerk reaction that misses the target.  It also puts off the required reconciliation.  It took us decades to get reconciliation following the American Civil War.  In this day and age, with the British no longer there to give the world peace, we need to come together relatively quickly.

One of my relatives related Speaker Pelosi to Captain Ahab, in the Herman Melville novel Moby-Dick?  I think that is apt.

Regards  —  Cliff

COVID Vaccine and Morality


For John, BLUF:  There has been some question as to the morality of the COVID-19 Vaccine due to the use of cell lines from aborted fetuses in development.  Not an unreasonable question.  Here is an answer.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

In Pope Approved Letter, Explains What Would or Could Be Moral Acceptability & Why

From Zenit, by Reporters Deborah Castellano Lubov, 21 December, 2020, at 12:49.

Here is the article:

The Vatican has published a note about the morality of COVID-19 vaccines.

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the Dec. 21 ‘note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines’ recognized “the question of the use of vaccines, in general, is often at the center of controversy in the forum of public opinion.” Pope Francis examined it and ordered its publication during his Dec. 17 audience with Cardinal Ladaria, CDF Prefect, the note reads.

In the note whose full text can be read in English below and was provided in three languages, the CDF notes that “in recent months, this Congregation has received several requests for guidance regarding the use of vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19, which, in the course of research and production, employed cell lines drawn from tissue obtained from two abortions that occurred in the last century.”

The CDF’s prefect and secretary observed “diverse and sometimes conflicting pronouncements” in the mass media by bishops, Catholic associations, and experts have raised questions about the morality of the use of these vaccines.

The Vatican officials first drew readers’ attention to an “already important pronouncement” of the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAL) on this issue, entitled “Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human fetuses” (5 June 2005). They also reminded that the CDF expressed itself on the matter with the Instruction Dignitas Personae (September 8, 2008, cf. nn. 34 and 35), and in 2017, PAL returned to the topic with a Note.

“These documents already offer some general directive criteria,” it noted.

Now that first vaccines are being distributed…

Because the first vaccines against Covid-19 are already available for distribution and administration in various countries, the CDF expressed its wish to offer some indications for clarification of this matter.

“We do not intend to judge the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, although ethically relevant and necessary, as this evaluation is the responsibility of biomedical researchers and drug agencies.

Only Objective Is to Consider Moral Aspects

“Here, our objective is only to consider the moral aspects,” it clarified, “of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted.”

As the CDF’s Instruction Dignitas Personae stated in 2008, in cases where cells from aborted fetuses are employed to create cell lines for use in scientific research, “there exist differing degrees of responsibility”[1] of cooperation in evil.

For example, “in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision”.[2]

Conditions for Morally Acceptable Receipt

“In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available,” the note stated, “it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.”

The CDF explained that examples of being ‘not available,’ would for instance be “where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated.”

Fundamental Reason for Considering Their Use as ‘Morally Licit’

” The fundamental reason for considering the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote.”

The CDF stated that the “moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger,” such as “the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent[3]–in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive.”

No Direct Nor Indirect Practice of Abortion

“It should be emphasized, however, that the morally licit use of these types of vaccines, in the particular conditions that make it so, does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice by those who make use of these vaccines.”

“In fact,” the next point states, “the licit use of such vaccines does not and should not in any way imply that there is a moral endorsement of the use of cell lines proceeding from aborted fetuses.[4]”

The Vatican explicitly says both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies “are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated.”

“At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.”

In any case, from the ethical point of view, it continues, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one’s own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good.

“In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic,” it points out, “the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent.”

Specifically, the CDF says they “must avoid” any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.

The note also reminds the “moral imperative for the pharmaceutical industry, governments and international organizations to ensure that vaccines, which are effective and safe from a medical point of view, as well as ethically acceptable, are also accessible to the poorest countries in a manner that is not costly for them.”

Otherwise, it warns, the lack of access to vaccines would become another sign of discrimination and injustice that condemns poor countries to continue living in health, economic and social poverty.

Here is the Vatican-provided text of the CDF’s note:

***

Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines

The question of the use of vaccines, in general, is often at the center of controversy in the forum of public opinion. In recent months, this Congregation has received several requests for guidance regarding the use of vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19, which, in the course of research and production, employed cell lines drawn from tissue obtained from two abortions that occurred in the last century. At the same time, diverse and sometimes conflicting pronouncements in the mass media by bishops, Catholic associations, and experts have raised questions about the morality of the use of these vaccines.

There is already an important pronouncement of the Pontifical Academy for Life on this issue, entitled “Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human fetuses” (5 June 2005). Further, this Congregation expressed itself on the matter with the Instruction Dignitas Personae (September 8, 2008, cf. nn. 34 and 35). In 2017, the Pontifical Academy for Life returned to the topic with a Note. These documents already offer some general directive criteria.

Since the first vaccines against Covid-19 are already available for distribution and administration in various countries, this Congregation desires to offer some indications for clarification of this matter. We do not intend to judge the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, although ethically relevant and necessary, as this evaluation is the responsibility of biomedical researchers and drug agencies. Here, our objective is only to consider the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted.

1. As the Instruction Dignitas Personae states, in cases where cells from aborted fetuses are employed to create cell lines for use in scientific research, “there exist differing degrees of responsibility”[1] of cooperation in evil. For example, “in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision”.[2]

2. In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available (e.g. in countries where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated) it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.

3. The fundamental reason for considering the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote. The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent[3]–in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive. It should be emphasized, however, that the morally licit use of these types of vaccines, in the particular conditions that make it so, does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice by those who make use of these vaccines.

4. In fact, the licit use of such vaccines does not and should not in any way imply that there is a moral endorsement of the use of cell lines proceeding from aborted fetuses.[4] Both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated.

5. At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one’s own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.

6. Finally, there is also a moral imperative for the pharmaceutical industry, governments and international organizations to ensure that vaccines, which are effective and safe from a medical point of view, as well as ethically acceptable, are also accessible to the poorest countries in a manner that is not costly for them. The lack of access to vaccines, otherwise, would become another sign of discrimination and injustice that condemns poor countries to continue living in health, economic and social poverty.[5]

The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 17 December 2020, examined the present Note and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 21 December 2020, Liturgical Memorial of Saint Peter Canisius.

Luis F. Card. Ladaria, S.I.           + S.E. Mons. Giacomo Morandi
PrefectTitular Archbishop of Cerveteri
Secretary

________________________

[1] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8th December 2008), n. 35; AAS (100), 884.

[2] Ibid, 885.

[3] Cfr. Pontifical Academy for Life, “Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human foetuses”, 5th June 2005.

[4] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruct. Dignitas Personae, n. 35: “When the illicit action is endorsed by the laws which regulate healthcare and scientific research, it is necessary to distance oneself from the evil aspects of that system in order not to give the impression of a certain toleration or tacit acceptance of actions which are gravely unjust. Any appearance of acceptance would in fact contribute to the growing indifference to, if not the approval of, such actions in certain medical and political circles”,

[5] Cfr. Francis, Address to the members of the “Banco Farmaceutico” foundation, 19 September 2020.

Hat tip to Memeorandum.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff