Terry Disseminates Sanity - TDS

23/10/2026

𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗿𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 (𝗧𝗗𝗦) #𝟳𝟱
𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗧𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳 𝗥𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
𝗟𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗸 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝘁.
– Susan Collins (approximately)
𝗟𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗳𝗲𝘄 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 “𝗟𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝗮𝘆” 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗹 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱, 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗣𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗡𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗼, 𝗦𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮:
“𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗸𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲.”
𝗔𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝘁, “𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲” 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝗹.
𝗜𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗶𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗼𝗱𝗱𝗹𝗲𝗿-𝗶𝗻-𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗳 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀. 𝗡𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿. 𝗡𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆’𝘀 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝘂𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗼𝘄’𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗱𝗮𝘆’𝘀 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝘂𝗹𝘀𝗲.
𝗔𝗱𝗿𝗶𝗳𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗮 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗼𝘀, 𝗵𝗲 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗰𝗲𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗰𝗲𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱.
𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝗝𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 (𝗢𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟯), 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝟱𝟬% 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝗹𝘆 $𝟮𝟬 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗽𝘀𝗲𝗱. 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱. 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘃𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗳 𝗻𝗼 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗝𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆.
𝗦𝗼 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗳𝗼𝗿 “𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲.”
𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗮 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗹.
𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝗽𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗱𝗲.
𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲’𝘀 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝘁.
𝗔𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝘀’ 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗯𝗹𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲:
“𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗻’𝘁 𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝘁.”
𝗘𝘅𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆.
𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝗻’𝘁 𝗱𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝘁.
𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝗻’𝘁 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝘁.
𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝗻’𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝘁.
𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝗻’𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝘁.
𝗬𝗲𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗯𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝗰𝘆 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆.
𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗵𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗧𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳 𝗥𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝘀𝗼 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲.
𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘂𝗽.
𝗚𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗮 𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗻.
𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿?
𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘀𝗸𝗲𝘆?
𝗙𝗶𝘀𝗵?
𝗠𝗼𝗹𝘀𝗼𝗻?
𝗥𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝘁?
𝗡𝗼𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝘀.
𝗟𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗲𝗹.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗱𝗮𝘆’𝘀 “𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲” 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗼𝘄’𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗸’𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵’𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝗹.
𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗲’𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗲𝗹.
🎯 𝗦𝗽𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝘁. 𝗣𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝘁. 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘁. 🇨🇦🥃🧂🐟🍺

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-expected-to-remove-some-tariffs-on-canada-in-bid-to-help-susan-collins-6a89ed1d?st=w3h5MK&reflink=article_copyURL_share

16/10/2026

𝗔 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗿𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 (𝗧𝗗𝗦) 𝗦𝗵𝗼𝗿𝘁
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝗻’𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗮 𝘀𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗵𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗷𝗼𝗯, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁’𝘀 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝗶𝗺 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿-𝗶𝗻-𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗳, 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗵𝗲’𝘀 𝗴𝗼𝘁 “𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗮 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝗣𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝗛𝗲𝗴𝘀𝗲𝘁𝗵,” 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿?

Fair question of judgment!

Graphic - WSJ

15/10/2026

𝗔 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗿𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 (𝗧𝗗𝗦) 𝗦𝗵𝗼𝗿𝘁 - 𝗠𝘆 𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗱𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀, 𝗮𝗻 𝗢𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁y

𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘐 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘈𝘕𝘠 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵.

"Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that 'the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,' and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide."
~ 𝗣𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝘀 & 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗖𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺.

Graphic - WSJ

12/10/2026

𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 (𝐓𝐃𝐒) #𝟕𝟒�𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐝𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐲
"Necessity knows no law."�— Ancient Proverb
From the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board:
“The strategic turn here is hard to understand. Only last month Mr. Trump signed Lindsey Graham’s bill to allow new sanctions and tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas. Now Mr. Trump has decided to buy Russian diesel and lift some current U.S. sanctions. The U.S. has been browbeating Europe, India and China not to buy Russian oil, and so much for all that diplomatic effort.”
𝐌𝐲 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧:
Congress reinforced that policy when it passed the Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act in 2022, prohibiting imports of Russian oil and petroleum products into the United States. More recently, the bipartisan Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act expanded the pressure campaign by authorizing sanctions and tariffs aimed at discouraging other countries from purchasing Russian energy.
Together, the two measures reflected a clear objective: reduce the flow of energy revenues to the Kremlin.
Importing Russian diesel now is impossible to reconcile with either the letter of the 2022 ban or the purpose of the broader sanctions regime. Only weeks after signing legislation designed to punish countries that purchase Russian energy, the Administration has chosen to do precisely what it was urging others not to do.
This is not strategic consistency. It is political desperation.
The reversal is driven by a desire to lower energy prices before the midterm elections and purchase goodwill from voters at the expense of principles championed only weeks ago. It belongs in the same category as the promise to send $5,000 checks to every American adult should the GOP retain control of Congress: an election-year attempt to trade long-term policy consistency for short-term political gain.
𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐏𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭:
𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬.
There is nothing insane about this decision. It is calculated, purposeful, and politically rational.
The insanity would be pretending that the principle still matters.
For four years, Americans were told that denying energy revenue to the Kremlin was a moral imperative. In 2022, Congress made it law. Just last month, that policy was reinforced with additional sanctions aimed at punishing others for doing what the United States is now preparing to do itself.
Principles that can be discarded the moment they become politically inconvenient are not principles.
𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐬𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐬.

𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿’𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲
I do not debate on this platform. Experience has shown it’s futile to argue with people operating from blind allegiance. You’re welcome to react however you choose—like, love, laugh, or send the angry face—and you’re free to comment in agreement, disagreement, or clarification. But I will not be responding. The only exception is this: if you misrepresent what I’ve said, I won’t correct you; I’ll simply delete the comment. My page. My rules.

23/09/2026

𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗹 𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗸 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗢𝘂𝗿 𝗠𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗳. 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗪𝗮𝗿 𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲. 𝗜𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗪𝗲’𝘃𝗲 𝗕𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲?

“𝗔 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁, 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻,” 𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲. “𝗜 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹. 𝗛𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿, 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗧𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲, 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗶𝗹, 𝗺𝗮𝘆𝗯𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻, 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗞𝗡𝗢𝗪𝗦?” — 𝗔𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗹 𝟳, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲

“𝗗𝗼 𝗜 𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗼 𝗶𝘁 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗹𝘆, 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗮 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻? 𝗗𝗼 𝗜 𝗱𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗻𝗼 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼 𝗵𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀?” — 𝗦𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟮, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲

Methinks the sanity point is obvious on this one. Carry on.

17/07/2026

𝐀 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 (𝐓𝐃𝐒) 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐭 — 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩: 𝐈𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 & 𝐆𝐚𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠

What we saw last night wasn’t just another barrage of recycled talking points — it was political gaslighting in full form. The speech didn’t merely repeat false or distorted claims; it actively denied documented events, rewrote recent history, and insisted the audience’s own memory was wrong. That’s the essence of gaslighting: not simply misleading people, but making them question their grip on reality itself. When a leader tells the public that what they saw, heard, or lived through “never happened,” or that the evidence in front of them is somehow fake, the goal isn’t persuasion — it’s disorientation. And once people doubt their own perception, they become far more vulnerable to the repeated falsehoods and out‑of‑context narratives that follow. It’s a strategy designed to replace shared reality with manufactured reality, and last night’s performance leaned hard on that playbook.

09/07/2026

Terry Disseminates Sanity (TDS) Talk #65
Administration Pins Housing Unaffordability on Illegal Immigration – A Misleading Narrative
President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have claimed that Biden’s immigration policies are responsible for the 30% increase in home values since Covid. They’d like you to believe it’s simply a matter of supply and demand — that illegal immigrants took homes that rightfully belong to citizens, increasing demand while supply stayed flat, thus making housing unaffordable. Really?
𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗣𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁:
Unauthorized immigration explains a small fraction of recent home‑price increases — nowhere near the 30% claimed by Trump, Vance, and Bessent. The Dallas Fed data simply does not support their narrative.
It’s not that simple, and we’ve all seen it. I’ve lived in eight different metropolitan areas in my 42‑year career, and I’ve never seen waves of illegal Latin American immigrants living in multigenerational, low‑end inner‑city apartments cause the surrounding housing stock to soar in value. In my experience — and just plain common sense — it tends to depreciate the value of nearby housing. But that’s just my silly opinion. Let’s stick to the facts.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas recently released a report on this, and Trump immediately twisted its findings, claiming: “the Biden illegal immigrant wave drove up home prices 30%.”
Vice President JD Vance echoed the claim, arguing: “Stopping the flood of illegal migrants into this country will bring down home prices and make housing affordable again for young Americans who are trying to start a family.” He didn’t read the study either. JD has also said in the past: “Look, in Springfield, Ohio (where they were eating the dogs and eating the cats), and in communities all across this country… you have got housing that is totally unaffordable because we brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce homes.”
Secretary Bessent has carried this Administration line directly into congressional oversight hearings, defending the overly simplistic theory that immigration surges directly inflate domestic living and housing costs.
Well, my friends at the WSJ Editorial Board — a conservative outfit usually sympathetic to this Administration’s economic messaging — dove deep into the Dallas Fed report, and even they found the trio’s claims unsupported.
“The authors used administrative data to determine where unauthorized immigrants (including those on parole) settled during the Biden border surge. It found that an inflow of unauthorized workers equal to 1% of a local area’s workforce was associated with a 2.2% increase in local home prices and 1.4% in rents.
They extrapolated that unauthorized immigration accounted for roughly 30% of home‑price, and 20% of rent, increases between early 2021 and early 2024. This equates to an increase of 6.6% in home prices and 4.3% in rents during that period — not 30%.”
— WSJ Editorial Board, “The Latest Housing Scapegoats,” July 8, 2026
The editorial board also note that the cities studied in the Fed paper are the same cities that Californians, Northeasterners, and Illini flocked to during the pandemic. It’s far more rational to believe that surge played a larger role in driving up housing prices than illegal immigration. Hold that thought.
Are illegal immigrants flush with cartel cash to go buy middle‑class housing stock? Of course not. If anything — based on the very supply‑and‑demand logic the trio hang their hats on — inner‑city rent would be the pressure point. So why would illegal immigrants have a bigger effect on home appreciation than rent?
Answer: they didn’t.
The study also indicates things Trump doesn’t want you to know. Within the scope of the analysis, immigrants didn’t displace or otherwise harm American workers. No negative impact on employment or local wages. Employment increased commensurate with the migration numbers; they weren’t taking jobs from Americans.
The study also found no increased burden on the welfare state. That’s right — faster economic growth from increased employment allowed the areas studied to absorb the immigration with no increase in federal or state transfer‑payment programs (welfare, SNAP, Medicaid, etc.).
Conclusion
This Administration will go to extraordinary lengths to sustain their narrative that immigration is destroying the country. It’s up to rational people to call them out on their outright distortion of the facts. I thought the “eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats” nonsense would have put an end to it, but apparently not. And so, I continue my crusade of calling out their absurdity.
Author’s Note:
I do not debate on this platform. Experience has shown it’s futile to argue with people operating from blind allegiance. You’re welcome to react however you choose — like, love, laugh, or send the angry face — and you are free to comment in agreement, disagreement, or clarification. But I will not be responding. The only exception is this: if you misrepresent what I’ve said, I won’t correct you; I’ll simply delete the comment. My page. My rules.

Politicians are misusing a Fed study on migrants and home prices.

05/07/2026

Terry Disseminates Sanity (𝙏𝘿𝙎) 𝙏𝙖𝙡𝙠 #64
𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙋𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙪𝙡𝙪𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝘼𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝘿𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙘𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙮
𝙁𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩𝙝 𝙤𝙛 𝙅𝙪𝙡𝙮 𝙀𝙙𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣
One of the most valuable lessons I learned in college didn’t come from my engineering curriculum. It came from a political science elective I took because the country was in trouble and I knew I had to understand our democracy better – Jimmy Carter was President, there was an energy crisis, and inflation was far more extreme than anything we’ve experienced since the nation’s Covid recovery challenges. The professor — whose name I’ve long forgotten — taught a simple but powerful idea:

American democracy moves like a pendulum.
Not in a straight line. Not gradually.
It swings.

And it swings because the founders designed a system where change is inevitable, but extremes cannot hold permanently. Power accumulates, overreaches, frustrates, and then the public corrects it. Slowly at first. Then decisively.

The Trump Administration’s populist agenda is extreme. He’s pushing hard against the machine the founders created, but we the people won’t let him.

Let’s walk through the swings I’ve lived through.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙎𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙄’𝙫𝙚 𝙎𝙚𝙚𝙣
• Eisenhower’s calm conservatism
A steady hand after WWII. Moderate. Stable. Predictable. He inherited an entirely new economic system from FDR’s New Deal, but worked within the system to bring calm and prosperity.

• Kennedy–Johnson liberalism
A swing toward activism — civil rights, the Great Society, expansive federal programs.

• The backlash: Nixon–Ford conservatism
Johnson’s excesses produced a correction. Watergate ended Nixon, but the ideological swing was real.

• Carter’s benevolent idealism
After Nixon, the country wanted decency. Carter provided it. But the economy didn’t cooperate — stagflation, energy crises, interest rates through the roof.

• The snap: Reagan’s 1980 landslide
This wasn’t drift. It was a lurch.
Carter won in 1976.
Reagan won 44 states in 1980.

• The super-snap: Reagan’s 49-state 1984 victory
Mondale carried only Minnesota (and DC).
One of the most dramatic pendulum swings in American history.

• Reagan/Bush → Clinton/Gore
After 12 years of conservative rule, the country swung back to centrist liberalism — economic optimism, social moderation, and a belief in government competence.

• Clinton → George W. Bush
Clinton’s scandals and big-government reputation produced another correction — toward “compassionate conservatism,” a term coined by his father, then toward post‑9/11 assertiveness.

• Bush → Obama
War fatigue and economic collapse swung the country left — toward hope, reform, and cultural liberalism.

• Obama → Trump
Obama-era progressivism, cultural turbulence, and populist frustration produced a swing not toward traditional conservatism, but toward grievance-driven populism.

This is the pendulum.
This is the founders’ design.
This is the rhythm of American democracy.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙈𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙁𝙤𝙧 𝙏𝙤𝙙𝙖𝙮
Here’s the point my professor made — and the point I’m making now:

When one side pushes too far, the system pushes back.

And today, the Republican Party faces a choice.

If the GOP continues to anchor itself to Trump-style populism — the chaos politics, the grievance politics, the personality politics and the extreme income inequality — the pendulum will swing again.

We are going to discuss just two of the many examples of the Trump Administration’s extremism. Just two for brevity.

(1) Economic Inequality and the Seeds of Socialism
Historically, socialist and communist movements often emerge when economic inequality becomes intolerable — when those who labor feel exploited by those who own. That’s history.

This week the news was full of Trump making over $2 billion dollars in income in 2025. When questioned about it, he said:
“You know why I’m profiting? Because the stock market’s going up. Everybody’s profiting.”

Does the President not know the following:

• Only 40% of Americans directly own stocks
• Including employer retirement accounts raises it to 55–58%
• The top 10% own 89% of all stocks
• The top 1% alone own 50%
• The average employer retirement account is $40,000

A rising tide floats all boats — true, if you have a boat.
Half the country doesn’t. They’re drowning.

This is exactly the kind of imbalance that fuels pendulum swings.

(2) Humphrey’s Executor and Executive Overreach
Trump asked the Supreme Court to overturn 1935’s Humphrey’s Executor so he could fire the heads of Independent Agencies at will. The Roberts Court agreed. Independent Agencies are now effectively Executive Branch agencies that serve at the President’s pleasure.

I wrote about the importance of Independent Agencies in TDS #44. see https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DyyUcaan4/

This is precisely the kind of executive overreach the founders expected the system to correct.

And don’t forget — when the pendulum swings, the correction will be severe.

Due to his extremism, when the pendulum swings, it won’t swing to the middle; it will swing hard left.

It could swing toward a far-left Democratic administration, one aligned with the party’s democratic-socialist wing. Not because that outcome is inevitable. Not because any specific candidate is destined to win. But because that’s how pendulums behave when they’ve been pulled too far in one direction.

The founders didn’t design ideological swings.
They designed friction — checks, balances, staggered elections, slow change.
And that friction prevents extremes from becoming permanent.

Push too far, and the country pushes back.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙋𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙪𝙡𝙪𝙢 𝙖𝙡𝙬𝙖𝙮𝙨 𝙨𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨.
The only question is how far.
Sanity Point
We don’t want extreme swings either left or right. As we’ve been marching for two years, we don’t want kings or omnipotent Presidents and we don’t want to kill America’s entrepreneurial incubator by becoming a Socialist nation. So, let’s all find some middle ground and govern from the center.

𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿’𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲
I do not debate on this platform. Experience has shown it’s futile to argue with people operating from blind allegiance. You’re welcome to react however you choose—like, love, laugh, or send the angry face—and you’re free to comment in agreement, disagreement, or clarification. But I will not be responding. The only exception is this: if you misrepresent what I’ve said, I won’t correct you; I’ll simply delete the comment. My page. My rules.

18/06/2026

𝑻𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒚 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝑺𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒚 (𝑻𝑫𝑺) 𝑻𝒂𝒍𝒌 #𝟔𝟑
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝗹?

𝗕𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 “𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀.” 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻’𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗶𝘁, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲:

𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻
𝗕𝗕𝗖: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gy700j0eko

𝗜𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘀, 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗴𝗹𝗲:
“𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗨𝗦 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻.”

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗸, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱.
𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝘁𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲.
𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗹𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴.

𝗡𝗼 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 — 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗿.
𝗡𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻.
𝗡𝗼 “𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆.”

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲:
𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.

---

𝗛𝘂𝗯𝗿𝗶𝘀 & 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀

𝗟𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝘂𝗯𝗿𝗶𝘀 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿.

𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝟲, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲:
“𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁 𝗨𝗡𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗔𝗟 𝗦𝗨𝗥𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗥.”

𝗙𝗲𝗯𝗿𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝟮𝟴, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲:
𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲. 𝗘𝗻𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝘂𝗽.
“𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱… 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.”

𝗙𝗲𝗯𝗿𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝟮𝟴, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 (𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘆):
𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻’𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝘀.
𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨.𝗦. 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 “𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝘀.”

𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗢𝗨.
𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱.

𝗡𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿.
𝗡𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲.
𝗡𝗼 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 “𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲” 𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘄 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗮 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝘁𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱.

---

𝗢𝗶𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀

𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝟵, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲:
“𝗪𝗲’𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗪𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗼𝗶𝗹.”

𝗔𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗹 𝟭, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲:
“𝗜𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘂𝘀. 𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗶𝗹. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱.”

𝗧𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗸𝘀 𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿:

𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟭𝟳, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲:
𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗢𝗨, 𝘄𝗲 “𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝘂𝗻 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗸𝘀.”

𝗜𝗻 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗹, 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝗶𝗹.
𝗕𝘆 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲, 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗸𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝘆.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆.
𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗽 𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆.

---

𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲 / 𝗛𝗼𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿

𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟭𝟳, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 — 𝗥𝗲𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀:
“𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗶𝘀… 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲.”

𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟭𝟳, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 — 𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹:
𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹, “𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗴𝗼 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲.”

𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟭𝟳, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲:
“𝗜 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘁 𝗛𝗼𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿… 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗰𝗸 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱.”

𝗦𝗼 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀𝘁‑𝘁𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿, 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻.
𝗜𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
𝗜𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 “𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵.”

𝗜𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗴𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗱𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝘀 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻.

𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗙𝗲𝗯𝗿𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆, 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗹 𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗪𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴.

---

𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗮𝗿

• 𝗗𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴: 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝘀 $𝟮𝟵 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗢𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝘁 $𝟱𝟬–𝟳𝟮 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻.
• 𝗘𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗮 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀: $𝟰𝟬–𝟲𝟬 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻.
• 𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗰𝗸: 𝗵𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
• 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗴: 𝗵𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.

𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁?

𝗡𝗼 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹.
𝗡𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
𝗡𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻.

𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 — 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿, 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱.

𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿: 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲.
𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆.
𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳‑𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲.
𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱.

𝗪𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹.
𝗛𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲.
𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗛𝗶𝘀 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗦𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴

𝗪𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗯𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀.
𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀.

𝗠𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗣𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲:
“𝗜𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗯𝗮𝗺𝗮–𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹.”

𝗦𝗲𝗻. 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗱𝘆 (𝗥–𝗟𝗔):
“𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗲. 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻’𝘀 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗯𝗲𝗱, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗛𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘂𝘇 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀… 𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱‑𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹.”

𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗱𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲:

𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻.
𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗿𝘂𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
𝟭𝟯 𝗨.𝗦. 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲.

𝗡𝗼𝘄?
𝟭𝟯 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗱.
𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗺𝗽.
𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗱.
𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗱.

𝗛𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻:
“𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 𝗯𝗹𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲𝘀.”

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘁 𝗺𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀.
𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗵𝗶𝗺.

---

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗚𝗲𝘁𝘀

𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗹𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 “𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹.”

• 𝗜𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗶𝗹 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀 — 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗳𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝗢𝗻𝗲.
• 𝗨𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘇𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘀 — 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱.
• $𝟯𝟬𝟬 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 “𝗨.𝗦. 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆.”
𝗜𝘁’𝘀 “𝗚𝘂𝗹𝗳 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆.”

𝗦𝘂𝗿𝗲.
𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗲’𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝘀.

𝗕𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿:

• 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗻𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲.
• 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗮𝗶𝗿‑𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗲𝘀.
• 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀.
• 𝗨.𝗦. 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗱.

𝗦𝗼 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗵, 𝗼𝗶𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲, 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗺.

𝗪𝗲 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗯.

---

𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗣𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁:

𝗔𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲, 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳‑𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆.
𝗪𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗱 — 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻 — 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁‑𝗶𝗻‑𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗳.

---

𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿’𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲

𝗜 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺. 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲.
𝗬𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁 — 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲, 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲, 𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵, 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.
𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱.
𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀, 𝗜 𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 — 𝗜’𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.
𝗠𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲. 𝗠𝘆 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀.

07/06/2026

𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗿𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 (𝗧𝗗𝗦) 𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗸 #𝟲𝟮
𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽’𝘀 𝗖𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘁 — 𝗡𝗼 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱, 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗦𝘆𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘆
In a June 5, 2026 Wall Street Journal editorial, James Freeman praises Donald Trump for bringing in Bill Pulte — a 38‑year‑old heir to a homebuilding fortune — to “overhaul” the U.S. Intelligence Community.
Let’s pause there.
Bill Pulte has zero experience in foreign affairs.
Zero experience in intelligence.
Zero experience in national security.
He doesn’t even have experience building houses.
His sole qualification? Sycophancy — the art of flattering power to gain favor. In other words, he’s a Trump toady.
The editorial quotes Trump directly:
He wants Pulte, his incoming Acting Director of National Intelligence, to begin firing a “large number” of employees and shrink — or possibly eliminate — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Trump even suggests Pulte should model his approach after Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who has been busy shrinking the Department of Education — an agency Trump has repeatedly said he wants to abolish.
Now, I’ll go on record: I’m a proud RINO who believes in lower taxes, smaller government, and smarter regulation. Bureaucracy can be leaner.
What I object to is Trump’s idiotic, performative, and uninformed way of doing it.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗢𝗚𝗘 𝗗𝗲𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗹𝗲
We began this administration with DOGE — a plan to gut $2 trillion from the federal workforce and associated programs. It failed spectacularly. It was less effective than the Clinton/Gore “Reinventing Government” initiative, which at least produced measurable results.
And Clinton/Gore did it without flamethrowers, chainsaws, or Elon‑style theatrics.
See attached.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗮 𝗠𝗰𝗠𝗮𝗵𝗼𝗻 “𝗔𝟭” 𝗠𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁
The WSJ editorial holds up Linda McMahon as a model of Trump‑era efficiency. Let’s recall her recent performance at the ASU+GSV Summit, where she repeatedly praised the promise of “A1 in classrooms” — confusing artificial intelligence with steak sauce.
“First graders… will have A1 teaching every year,” she said.
“Let’s see A1, and how can that be helpful.”
A.1. Steak Sauce even joined the fun online.
So yes — by all means — let’s overhaul the intelligence community using the same strategic brilliance that can’t distinguish AI from condiments.
𝗕𝗼𝗯𝗯𝘆 𝗕𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗺
Then there’s Bobby “Brainworm,” our Director of Health and Human Services — a man with no public‑health background, but plenty of experience snorting co***ne off toilet seats. He has openly discussed an eleven‑year he**in addiction and now oversees the FDA, CDC, and NIH.
This is also the man who taught Trump “Trump Math”:
A drug price rising from $100 to $600 = a 600% increase
Therefore, a drop from $600 back to $100 = a 600% decrease
Harvard and UVA should probably check their admissions records.
𝗞𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶 𝗡𝗼𝗲𝗺’𝘀 𝗛𝗮𝗯𝗲𝗮𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗽𝘂𝘀 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁
Kristi Noem, former Director of Homeland Security, once testified:
“Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.”
That is almost the exact opposite of what habeas corpus means. Most of us learned this in elementary school: habeas corpus protects individuals from unlawful detention.
Yet she ran Homeland Security.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺
And now we have Bill Pulte — a wealthy 38‑year‑old with no intelligence background — tasked with “fixing” national intelligence.
His first major contribution to national policy?
The 50‑year mortgage, a plan to solve the housing crisis by ensuring young Americans remain indebted from cradle to grave.
Brilliant.
𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗣𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁
Trump doesn’t choose people with experience.
He doesn’t choose people with expertise.
He doesn’t even choose people with common sense.
He chooses sycophants — because loyalty, not competence, is the only credential that matters in Trump’s orbit.
And the country pays the price.
𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿’𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲
𝗜 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺. 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗬𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁 — 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲, 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲, 𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵, 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.
𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱.
𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀, 𝗜 𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 — 𝗜’𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.
𝗠𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲. 𝗠𝘆 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀