The Black Faces of White Supremacy

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. Your financial support is appreciated. Click here to send me a tip of $5.00.

The Black Faces of White Supremacy

Larry Elder was running for the office of governor in CA against Gavin Newsome and he was a very credible threat; although he lost his bid. The Left was very concerned about losing power so they galvanized their efforts to defeat them. One of their strategies was to paint Larry Elder, an African American, as a white supremacist. Check out the headline below.

The left has a long running trend of denouncing African Americans who disagree with their views as White Supremacists. Another example is how a former MSNBC host called Condoleeza Rice a white supremacist for denouncing critical race theory.

Another example of this is when Senator Tim Scott said, “Woke supremacy is as bad as white supremacy.” For the uninitiated, Urban Dictionary defines “woke supremacy” as the belief that the opinions of far-left people are more important or valid than those of people with opposing views. Ironically, the article below bears witness to that definition.

The phenomenon of calling black people white supremacists is not exclusive to the political arena. It extends to sports figures as well. Sports legend – Charles Barkley has also been labeled a white supremacist.


What drew the ire from the left? Comments like these…

I’m not gonna waste my time thinking about these Confederate statues. That’s wasted energy. You know what I’m gonna do? I’m gonna keep doing great things. I’m gonna keep trying to make a difference, number one in the black community, because I’m black, but I’m also gonna try to do good things in the world.

I’m not gonna waste my time screaming at a neo-Nazi who’s gonna hate me no matter what, and I’m not gonna waste my time … worrying about these statues they got all over the country

And here is another incendiary quote, as deemed by the left.

What we as black people need to do, we need to worry about getting our education. We need to stop killing each other. We need to try to find a way to have more economic opportunity and things like that. Those things are important and significant.

The irony in all of this is that so many on the left are trapped in a prison of two ideas. If you disagree with leftist viewpoints then, you are racist and there are no other viewpoints worthy of debate. I believe however that there is another perspective not being considered by the left or right, at least not on a wide scale. The very idea of “supremacy is not exclusive to color. In a very real way, it is a spiritual issue. Terry Crews said it best, I think.

“But the thing is, I’ve experienced supremacy even growing up. I’ve had black people tell me that the white man is the devil. I’ve experienced whole organizations that … because of the suffering of black people, they have decided that now, we are not equal, we’re better. And I think that’s a mistake,” Crews argued.

The actor insisted that supremacy — in all its forms — is a “spiritual problem.”

“In your head, you can look at yourself and you can develop a dangerous self-righteousness that could really hurt what we’re trying to do right now,” Crews argued. “We have to include this white voice, this Hispanic voice, this Asian voice. We have to include it right now, because if we don’t, it’s going to slip into something we are really not prepared for.”

Crews said that in response to a tweet that some said he should have been cancelled over. I like his tweet and will share it on my twitter. Feel free to do likewise.

The left labels people they disagree with as racists. They overlook the irony that their protests have made them what they so strongly disavow. Declaring that someone is less black because they don’t see things as you do, makes you a superior black; doesn’t it? And if so, isn’t that a supremacist stance?

White supremacy is wrong. Black supremacy is wrong. Asian, Hispanic and (fill in the blank) supremacy is also wrong. No group of people is better than the other; especially if they different points of view.

We should all stand up against supremacy in all its forms.

It is the right thing to do.

It is the social justice we should all support.

If we do not then every accusation of supremacy is voiced by a supremacist.


Thanks for reading (and subscribing)! $$$ All tips are welcome. By the way, click here to check the archives and discover what you’ve missed. More content tomorrow.

The Sick and Twisted Experiments of Dr. Anthony Fauci

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. All tips are welcome. And if you have not already, help spread the message that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

The Sick and Twisted Experiments of Dr. Anthony Fauci

Dr. Anthony Fauci performed a number of sick and twisted experiments on dogs. The experiments were unnecessary, without human benefit and all at taxpayers expense. Check out this quote from The Daily Caller.

Documents from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) obtained by a taxpayer watchdog organization reveal that the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, spent $1.68 million on unnecessary research that killed dozens of beagle puppies.

Between October 2018 and February 2019, NIAID-funded research at SRI International involved force-feeding or injecting 44 beagle puppies aged 6-8 months old with an experimental drug before killing and dissecting them, according to documents obtained by White Coat Waste Project (WCW), a taxpayer watchdog organization with a focus on scientific research. The research, deemed unnecessary by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), cost taxpayers $1.68 million.

The NIH documents stated the experiments were conducted “to provide data of suitable quality and integrity to support application to the U.S . Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulatory agencies.” However, following reporting by the Daily Caller and others on previous WCW investigations, the FDA stated this summer it “does not mandate that human drugs be studied in dogs.”

The SRI research involved cutting the dogs’ vocal cords so they could not bark, as well as experimentation on mice.

A bipartisan group of legislators demanded answers from Fauci on his cruel experiments. To quote The Hill

According to the White Coat Waste Project, the Food and Drug Administration does not require drugs to be tested on dogs, so the group is asking why the need for such testing. 

White Coat Waste claims that 44 beagle puppies were used in a Tunisia, North Africa, laboratory, and some of the dogs had their vocal cords removed, allegedly so scientists could work without incessant barking.

Leading the effort is Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), writing a letter to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) saying the cordectomies are “cruel” and a “reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds.” 

“Our investigators show that Fauci’s NIH division shipped part of a $375,800 grant to a lab in Tunisia to drug beagles and lock their heads in mesh cages filled with hungry sand flies so that the insects could eat them alive,” White Coat Waste told Changing America. “They also locked beagles alone in cages in the desert overnight for nine consecutive nights to use them as bait to attract infectious sand flies.”

According to The Blaze, “…lawmakers want Fauci to reveal how many drug tests have been performed on dogs since January 2018, as well as what are the total costs and what is the justification for them.”

Conservative talk show host – Candace Owens compared Fauci to the Nazi doctor Josef Mengele and #ArrestFauci has been trending on Twitter as well.

I agree with the outrage and think it justified. However, I am also asking the same questions that the website RT has made on the topic. To quote

One must ask why the popular outrage against Fauci over animal cruelty is not matched by an equal (if not more forceful) outrage over the doctor’s crimes against humanity. From his enthusiastic support of gain-of-function studies to his efforts to sideline a cheap, effective drug that could have saved thousands of lives during the AIDS epidemic in favor of a highly toxic alternative, Fauci’s hands are covered in the blood of humans as well as that of canines. 

Indeed, Fauci’s behavior during the Covid-19 outbreak – trashing cheap but effective treatments in favor of expensive alternatives lacking proof of efficacy – eerily mirrors his actions during the early years of AIDS. Thousands of people have died in both cases after Fauci pushed deadly or ineffective medications – most notably the failed cancer drug AZT in the 1980s and the failed Ebola drug remdesivir in the last two years – while safer and more efficacious remedies sat on the shelf.

You might be too young or ignorant of the controversies surrounding the AIDS epidemic of the 1980’s. Back then, Dr. Robert Willner, an American medical scientist noted for his role in AIDS research, once accused Dr. Anthony Fauci of genocide. Two quotes from “The Herald.”

Willner, who championed the view that AIDS is not caused by HIV infection, condemned members of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for allegedly perpetrating the “most horrible scandal and scam” ever perpetrated in the name of science and in all history by claiming that it is.

He said that the horror of the attack on Pearl Harbour during the Second World War in 1941 did not match the atrocities allegedly being perpetrated by Fauci and his colleagues at the institute, whom he described as “scoundrels of the worst order, criminals guilty of genocide”.

See it for yourself in the video below.

I think Fauci’s experiments on dogs were reprehensible.

I think Fauci’s handling of the AIDS epidemic was worse because it caused the death of human beings. If safer drugs were available, why experiment with less effective pharmaceuticals?

Experimenting on human beings without informed consent is wrong. And in light of that, allow me to share two things. First, a quote from Christianity Daily.

U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci reportedly admitted in an interview with Meet The Press that the COVID-19 vaccines are not actually safe for people.

The said interview was cited by Washington Gazette from a Jan. 29, 2021 New York Post report. The Gazette said Fauci “blatantly stated that the country needed to ‘make sure’ the vaccine truly is safe before” it is given to children by conducting “hundreds to a couple of thousands” of tests on children.

“The reason is traditionally when you have a situation like a new vaccine, you want to make sure, because children as well as pregnant women, are vulnerable, so, before you put it into the children, you’re going to want to make sure you have a degree of efficacy and safety that is established in an adult population, particularly an adult, normal population,” Fauci remarked in the said interview.

The Gazette pointed out that this indicates uncertainty in the vaccines’ safety yet would still use it to undertake the test on children who would come from the “general public.”

“So we don’t know if this vaccine is safe, but we’re going to pump it into children anyways. But what is particularly striking about his statements are when he said we needed to be certain of the vaccine’s safety in a “normal” population. For those of you who are scientifically-minded or work in the field of vaccine testing or statistics, you likely know this means a population that represents the general public,” the Gazette said.

The Gazette raised that Fauci’s recent statements indicate “there’s no way anyone could have said this vaccine was safe because the trials didn’t consist of a normal population.” It cited Pfizer’s test being performed on “healthy individuals” while Moderna is mum on the type of individuals their clinical trial sample had.

With that quote in mind, please consider the headline below very carefully.

If children were to die from this vaccine, it would be tragic and horrible. Likely though, the media would suppress the story and the larger population might not learn of it until much damage was done.

However, if animals were to die from this vaccine in horrific ways, there would likely be outrage and further action to #ArrestFauci by a bipartisan group of lawmakers.

What does that say about us?


Thanks for reading (and subscribing)! $$$ All tips are welcome. By the way, click here to check the archives and discover what you’ve missed. More content tomorrow.

Universal Basic Income Is Not The Utopia You Think It Is

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. Your financial support is appreciated. Click here to send me a tip of $5.00.

Universal Basic Income Is Not The Utopia You Think It Is

The Washington Post reported on Chicago being on the verge of creating one of the nation’s largest ‘guaranteed basic income’ programs. Here’s a quote

The Chicago City Council is poised to vote this week on what would be one of the nation’s largest basic income programs, giving 5,000 low-income households $500 per month each using federal funding from the pandemic stimulus package enacted this year.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) has proposed the more than $31 million program as part of her 2022 budget, which the city council is scheduled to consider on Wednesday. The one-year pilot program, funded by the nearly $2 billion Chicago received from the Biden administration’s American Rescue Plan, is supported by most of city’s 50 aldermen. But it has received pushback from the 20-member Black Caucus, which has urged Lightfoot to redirect the money to violence prevention programs.

Lightfoot has said the pilot program is motivated by her own childhood memories of hardship while growing up in Ohio. “I knew what it felt like to live check to check. When you’re in need, every bit of income helps,” she wrote in a tweet announcing the plan earlier this month.

Free money with no strings attached sounds good from the onset but, recipient beware. Free money from the government can have its drawbacks in the long-term, especially on society overall. Let me explain a few things about Universal Basic Income (also known as “Guaranteed Basic Income”).


Universal Basic Income is loosely defined as free money from the government without having to meet any requirements. The intent of Universal Basic Income is to help people on the verge of poverty or, to help people who are already in poverty, to get by. Its not a new idea. The concept was first explored in the 15th century by the author Thomas Moore, who after witnessing how capital punishment failed to keep people from stealing, said in his book – Utopia, the following…

“…Instead of inflicting these horrible punishments, it would be far more to the point to provide everyone with some means of livelihood, so that nobody’s under the frightful necessity of becoming, first a thief, and then a corpse.”

Universal Basic Income has been in and out of vogue ever since. In fact, in 1969, President Nixon lobbied for a type of Universal Basic Income when he pushed the “Family Assistance Plan which eventually died in the Senate. Now, I’m not sure, but I think President Nixon’s inspiration came from another public figure – the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have the utmost respect for the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and have a deep appreciation for his life’s work. However, on this issue, I must disagree with him. Universal Basic Income has actually been tried in Finland and it failed. Let me share with you some quotes from the Business Insider article – “Finland is killing its world-famous basic income experiment.”

Since the beginning of last year, 2000 Finns are getting money from the government each month – and they are not expected to do anything in return. The participants, aged 25–58, are all unemployed, and were selected at random by Kela, Finland’s social-security institution. Instead of unemployment benefits, the participants now receive €560, or $690, per month, tax free. Should they find a job during the two-year trial, they still get to keep the money. While the project is praised internationally for being at the cutting edge of social welfare, back in Finland, decision makers are quietly pulling the brakes, making a U-turn that is taking the project in a whole new direction.

The Universal Basic Income experiment in Finland began in 2017, ended in 2018 with results published in 2019. Spoiler alert, the report said people “showed positive effects on health and stress, but no improvement in work status.” So, what spurred on this experiment in the first place? Here’s another quote from the aforementioned Business Insider article.

“The existing unemployment benefits were so high, the Finnish government argued, and the system so rigid, an unemployed person might choose not to take a job as they would risk losing money by doing so – the higher your earnings, the lower your social benefits. The basic income was meant as an incentive for people to start working.

But in December last year, the Finnish parliament passed a bill that is taking the country’s welfare system in quite the opposite direction. The new ’activation model’ law requires jobseekers to work a minimum of 18 hours for three months – if you don’t manage to find such a job, you lose some of your benefits.

The reason for the turnaround in Finland is simple, the working population of Finland did not like the idea of giving away tax money to people capable of working. The news of the failed experiment did not reach Stockton, CA obviously. Nor was it brought to the attention of US Senator Kamala Harris or US Senator Cory Booker, who considered programs along the lines of universal basic income in 2018. That being said, and just to be fair, allow me to share with you some arguments people have made over the years for, and against, universal basic income. First, some of the pros…

  • Universal Basic Income would be a security net for the millions of people who will be left jobless by the tech revolution. Research shows that the longer you are unemployed, the longer it takes to find employment. If the jobless had a small source of income to help them back on their feet, they could find new jobs and start contributing to the economy sooner. [source]
  • There are lots and lots and lots of government organisations responsible for helping those in poverty, handing out unemployment benefits, food stamps, subsidised housing, etc. Universal Basic Income would replace all of those programs and thus, significantly cut a country’s spending. [source]
  • Universal Basic Income would discourage low wages by giving employees bargaining power. After all, why work for $7.25 an hour when you have a guaranteed monthy income paying so much more?” [source]
  • Universal Basic Income would end extreme financial poverty and enable people to stay in school longer and participate in training to improve skills or learn a trade. [source] [source]

Considering those reasons, it would seem that universal basic income is the way to go. If you think that, take a moment to ponder the arguments against. Here are just a few…

  • A universal basic income program would likely come from programs that already fight poverty like food stamps and child assistance programs. So, in effect, UBI would be taking money from the poorest people and spreading it to all citizens (even those who don’t need it). Wouldn’t that increase poverty and inequality rather than reduce them?” [Source]
  • Giving people a guarantee of money, each month will not incentivize them to work or necessarily improve their lives for the long-term. President Barack Obama addressed this issue in a 2011 Townhall address. He said,

“I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency.… As somebody who worked in low-income neighborhoods, I’ve seen it where people weren’t encouraged to work, weren’t encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and over time their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you’re progressive you’ve got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed.”

  • In 2016, Swiss voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for all. The reasons why they rejected it? Well, according to BBC News – “Critics of the measure said that disconnecting the link between work done and money earned would have been bad for society.” (For the record, I agree with that.) They also said, if you give away free Swiss money to everybody, you would have billions of people trying to move into Switzerland.” The general thought they had was, free money would make people lazy, devalue work and (most importantly) where would all this free money come from? Eventually, it would run out and people would no doubt rebel. That is, unless, Santa Claus is real. And if Santa Claus is indeed real, then, universal basic income is a great idea.

I don’t agree with the concept of Universal Basic Income for the same reasons the Swiss laid out. To paraphrase, money for nothing is bad for society. And I will add one more caveat, it makes you a slave to whomever is giving it. How does it not? If you grow dependent on the government giving you money you don’t have to earn then, you will tend to do whatever you are told. Now imagine, in this age of vaccine mandates, what else could the government compel you to do?


Thanks for reading (and subscribing)! $$$ All tips are welcome. By the way, click here to check the archives and discover what you’ve missed. More content tomorrow.

This Is How You Fix The Black Community

The Things I Think About Podcast

This Is How You Fix The Black Community

In my interview with Kendall Qualls, we discuss his non-profit organization – “Take Charge” and how it promotes personal accountability, family and community. We also get into the following fascinating topics that made time fly by. 

  • His personal testimony of growing up poor and overcoming adversity
  • 10,000 hours of leadership training from a young age
  • Men raising boys to men verses Women raising boys to men
  • The blessing of losing an election
  • Can I cut your grass? Can I rake your leaves? Chores vs Affluenza 
  • Women want husbands, not baby daddies
  • I would love to see more black male schoolteachers
  • Can we make marriage great again? 
  • Foreign born blacks do better than blacks born in America
  • This is the LEAST racist time period in America

After the podcast segment: 

  • Its time for Black Women to reconsider their ideal man! Spoiler alert: Plumbers can be sexy too. 


Kendall Qualls is the President of TakeCharge. TakeCharge strives to unite Americans regardless of background toward a shared history and common set of beliefs. At TakeCharge, they celebrate the idea of the American dream and encourage people working to achieve it. Mr. Qualls leads an organization that inspires and educates black and other minority communities to take charge of their own lives and not to rely on government and politicians for redemption and prosperity. Mr. Qualls has a unique vantage point to convey that message and to plant the seeds of change desperately needed. During his childhood, Mr. Qualls lived with his divorced mother and siblings in public housing projects of Harlem, NY in the late 1960s. Before middle school, Mr. Qualls left NYC to live with his father who lived in a trailer park in Oklahoma. Neither of his parents finished high school. Despite the challenges and turmoil of his early life, Mr. Qualls worked full-time to pay for college, served as an officer in the U.S. Army, earned three graduate degrees  including an MBA from the University of Michigan. He worked his way up the ranks at several Fortune 100 healthcare companies before he became Global Vice President of an $850M business unit.

Mr. Qualls champions the principles of meritocracy and supports the notion that free enterprise, and the private sector are the fastest and most equitable way to lift people from poverty to prosperity including black Americans. Mr. Qualls has been married to his wife, Sheila for 35 years and they have five children together. He was a mentor at Minnesota Adult & Teen Challenge. He serves on the Board for Lundstrum’s Performing Arts Center in North Minneapolis as well as Hope Farm School, a school for at-risk boys from Minneapolis.

Connect with Mr. Qualls online:

TakeCharge MN – Take charge of your life, family, and community


In case you missed it…

Did you know that Superman is gay now?

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. Your financial support is appreciated. Click here to send me a tip of $5.00.

This edition of Now What?! is brought to you by:

PODCAST: The Prism of America’s Education

Educator Karen Schoen puts a focus on the destruction of America through education. Everything is connected; nothing is random; everything has a plan and all plans are based on lies. Karen’s objective is to alert and inform Americans about what is in their school and what their children are learning, i.e.: Climate, UN, Sustainability, Activism; Hatred of their family, religion and America. Not learning: reading, writing, math, civics. The goal is to replace the current curricula with a traditional American education.

You can be a champion or a victim, you can’t be both. Ask yourself: Is America worth saving? If yes, then what will you do to help save the republic?

Click here to listen to this podcast!

Did you know that Superman is gay now?

In case you have not heard, Superman is gay now. Not the Superman you may have grown up with but his son – Jon. (Lois Lane and Clark Kent married and Jon is their son.) As you might imagine, this has generated some controversy.

This was not the only update to the Superman legend. He no longer fights for “truth, justice and the American way.” His mantra now is “truth, justice and a better tomorrow.”

Depending on your politics, these changes are either a good thing or a bad thing. If you are on the left, you may be doing cartwheels in joyous acceptance.

CNN interviewed bestselling comics writer Tom Taylor about Superman’s bisexuality and he praised it as affirming to so many people. To quote…

“…people burst into tears because they thought they would never see themselves in Superman… Older queer people are so happy that younger people who have not come out have this today.”

In another segment, CNN approved of the erasure of Superman’s traditional patriotism. Brian Stelter and John Berman discussed the matter on “New Day.” According to Newsbusters, Brian Stelter said this…

The American way part of the phrase came during World War II. That was a logical move when, you know, there was this World War. I think now the message is, this is a global franchise, this is a franchise looking to the future. And that kind of ethno-nationalism, you know, perhaps is not the right style going forward. I do think it is partly about appealing to a global box office. But hey, who can argue for, against a better tomorrow? What’s so bad about a better tomorrow? Sounds kinda vague and simple to me.

What does ethno-nationalism mean? In the context of that conversation, being patriotic is racist. On the other side of politics, the right are not happy with the changes.

While the left sees the changes as brave or heroic, the right disagrees. Most notably among them is Dean Cain who played Superman in the TV series – Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. To quote Newsbusters yet again

“They said it’s a bold new direction, I say they’re bandwagoning,” the 55-year-old actor and Hollywood conservative said on the FNC program.

Yeah, it’s bandwagoning. For the last several years, practically every piece of Hollywood or entertainment media has promoted a non-heterosexual theme. Even DC Comics has broken this ground before, announcing that their current rendition of Batman’s trusty sidekick Robin is bisexual as well.

Cain mentioned this, among other already watershed gay moments in the comic book world. “Robin just came out as bi — who’s really shocked about that one? The new Captain America is gay. My daughter in [The CW series] Supergirl, where I played the father, was gay.”

Yeah, come to think of it. This is an old hat. 

“So I don’t think it’s bold or brave or some crazy new direction. If they had done this 20 years ago, perhaps that would be bold or brave,” Cain added. 

Consider that we live during an entertainment era in which there’s a Hollywood gay lobby that demands that LGBTQ+ characters comprise 20 percent of all movie/TV characters. When LGBTQ people make up less than five percent of the population, there is clearly an overabundance of gay stuff in entertainment.

A comicbook artist who works for DC Comics has resigned over the issue. To quote Washington Examiner

Comic artist Gabe Eltaeb announced he was quitting during a YouTube livestream with DC Comics worker and Cyberfrog creator Ethan Van Sciver on Oct. 13.

“I’m tired of this s***,” Eltaeb said during the livestream of DC’s decision to make the new Superman bisexual .

It is “f****** nonsense” that the company changed Superman’s slogan from “truth, justice, and the American way” to “truth, justice, and a better tomorrow,” he added.

“I’m tired of them ruining these characters — they don’t have a right to do this,” he said, noting he would be finishing out his contract with DC before leaving.

“What really pissed me off was saying, ‘Truth, justice , and a better world,'” he added. “F*** that. It was, ‘Truth, justice, and the American way.’ My grandpa almost died in World War II — we don’t have a right to destroy s*** that people died for to give us. It’s a bunch of f****** nonsense.”

I grew up on comics and still follow some characters today via TV shows and movies. I have seen the evolution of characters over the years and disagree with the changes concerning Superman. I am not against bi-sexual characters. I just prefer that new WOKE characters be created verses adapting established characters to fit a woke agenda. I think it does a disservice to their legacies and only fulfills a political agenda.

I grew up loving the Superman character and many other heroes from the DC universe, male and female. Comics are about escapism. When you focus them so heavily on politics and culture wars, they become a point of division, people lose interest and the initiative fails. One day DC will stop repeating history and learn this. So far they have not.


Thanks for reading (and subscribing)! $$$ All tips are welcome. By the way, click here to check the archives and discover what you’ve missed. More content tomorrow.