Question O’ The Day
Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake?
Answer O’ The Day:
Yes

If we can thank Senator McConnell for one thing, it’s keeping this moron hack off the Supreme Court

AG Garland slams dismissal of Trump’s classified documents case: ‘Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake?’

Attorney General Merrick Garland suggested Tuesday that his lengthy legal career makes it unlikely that he illegally appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate alleged crimes committed by former President Donald Trump.

Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the federal classified documents case against Trump earlier this month, ruling that the special counsel was not lawfully appointed by Garland – a determination that made the Biden administration official bristle.

“For more than 20 years I was a federal judge. Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake about the law? I don’t think so,” Garland said in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.”

The attorney general noted that his “favorite room” in the Justice Department is its law library to hammer down the point.

“Our position is, it’s constitutional and valid. That’s why we appealed,” Garland added.

“I will say that this is the same process of appointing special counsel as was followed in the previous administration, Special Counsel [John] Durham and Special Counsel [Robert] Mueller, in multiple special counsels over the decades going back to Watergate and the special prosecutor in that case,” he said.

“Until now every single court, including the Supreme Court, that has considered the legality of a special counsel appointment has upheld it.”

In her July 15 order, Cannon ruled that Congress was required to appoint “constitutional officers” and the legislature was also needed to approve spending for such a prosecution.

“That role cannot be usurped by the executive branch or diffused elsewhere — whether in this case or in another case, whether in times of heightened national need or not,” she wrote in her 93-page ruling.

The judge determined that “Special Counsel Smith’s investigation has unlawfully drawn funds from the Indefinite Appropriation.”

“The Special Counsel’s office has spent tens of millions of dollars since November 2022, all drawn unconstitutionally from the Indefinite Appropriation,” Cannon wrote.

Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against Trump earlier this month, arguing that the special counsel was unlawfully appointed by the attorney general.

“For more than 18 months, Special Counsel Smith’s investigation and prosecution has been financed by substantial funds drawn from the Treasury without statutory authorization, and to try to rewrite history at this point seems near impossible. The Court has difficulty seeing how a remedy short of dismissal would cure this substantial separation-of-powers violation, but the answers are not entirely self-evident, and the caselaw is not well developed,” she added.

Smith’s team is expected to file a brief related to their appeal in the case, which charged the 78-year-old Republican nominee for president with improperly hoarding sensitive and classified White House documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence after his presidency, by the end of August.

Trump faced up to 450 years in prison if convicted on all counts in the case.

Another ‘austere religious scholar’ makes headlines as he raises money for land along the US border for a Sharia domain, complete with jihad training camps

While journalists at The Washington Post might call Sheikh Yasser al-Habib an “austere religious scholar” (the descriptor so affectionately used to eulogize Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi after he detonated himself and his own children a tunnel to evade capture by U.S. forces), others night label the Muslim cleric a terrorist, or even just a devout Islamist, while a report at the Daily Mail describes al-Habib as a “vile Muslim extremist”; after the massacres in the kibbutzim on October 7th, al-Habib reportedly said he and his followers were “buoyed” by the slaughter, and rhetorically asked, “Who among us does not enjoy retaliation of the Zionist enemy?”

Anyway, al-Habib has a substantial following, complete with his own “army” of jihadis, and he’s apparently eyeing small islands across the West—some even along the U.S. border—for purchase, in order to establish Sharia law domains, and he’s just about succeeded in buying a small uninhabited Scottish island called Torsa. As you can expect, the Western governments are radio silent on al-Habib’s ambitions.

Here are the details, from the Daily Mail item:

Vile Muslim extremist with his own ‘ARMY’ plans to create an Islamic homeland under Sharia law on island near US border – and reveals why he saw Canada as a good ‘base’

A firebrand Muslim clerk eyed up an island on the border of the United States and Canada to purchase and turn into an Islamic state.

In a video to his followers, Sheikh Yasser al-Habib, 45, an extremist scholar who already runs military-style training camps, revealed he is in advanced talks to buy an island off the west coast of Scotland.

His group plans to build its own school, hospital and mosque on the island, where it intends to practice sharia law.

Al-Habib – who claimed asylum in Britain 20 years ago after fleeing his native Kuwait – told his followers during their property search they considered an ‘island located on the border between the United States and Canada.’

Sarah Zaaimi, a deputy director for communications at the American think tank Atlantic Council, who has researched al-Habib, said: ‘They will have their own army, their own justice system, they will manage their own schools and hospitals, and people from around the world will be able to migrate to this homeland…

Encouraging supporters to donate, al-Habib said Torsa will become an Islamic ‘homeland’ which they will create to prepare for the coming of their messiah, known as Mahdi.

Al-Habib has already raised more than $3 million of their $3.5 million goal to purchase the land.

Fear not though, we’ve got border czar Kamala on the job—all I can say is deport, deport, deport, and don’t stop deporting until the West is the West again.

Because…tick, tock, tick, tock:

N.J.’s ban on AR-15 ‘assault’ rifles is unconstitutional, federal court rules

A federal court judge on Tuesday ruled New Jersey’s ban on AR-15 rifles is unconstitutional, a decision that could force the state to lift its decades-old prohibition on certain semi-automatic weapons.

The judge’s ruling was limited in scope — it applies only to one type of firearm, the Colt AR-15, and allows “for use of self-defense within the home.”

It marks the latest clawback of New Jersey’s famously strict gun laws following several recent pro-Second Amendment decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision was hailed as a partial victory by gun rights advocates who challenged New Jersey’s ban, arguing in court papers the law “blatantly violates the fundamental rights of the state’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in common use for self-defense and other lawful purposes.”

State Attorney General Matthew Platkin said Tuesday his office would appeal the ruling, arguing it “weaponizes the Second Amendment to undermine public safety.”

“The AR-15 is an instrument designed for warfare that inflicts catastrophic mass injuries, and is the weapon of choice for the epidemic of mass shootings that have ravaged so many communities across this nation,” Platkin said.

In a 69-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Peter Sheridan, a George W. Bush appointee, criticized “the Supreme Court’s pronouncements that certain firearms policy choices are ‘off the table’ when frequently, radical individuals possess and use these same firearms for evil purposes.”

However, Sheridan wrote, he was bound by the higher court’s rulings in two cases, known as Bruen and Heller.

“This principle — combined with the reckless inaction of our governmental leaders to address the mass shooting tragedy afflicting our Nation — necessitates the Court’s decision,” the judge wrote.

The judge’s ruling concerned dual challenges to New Jersey’s Assault Firearms Law, enacted in 1990, and a 2018 law signed by Gov. Phil Murphy that limited magazine sizes to 10 rounds.

While Sheridan ruled the AR-15 ban unconstitutional under the new Supreme Court rulings, he upheld the state’s large-capacity magazine ban under the same framework.

The Supreme Court’s ruling “forbade a complete prohibition on a class of gun ownership,” he wrote, noting that AR-15 rifles are commonplace in gun-friendly states.

But the judge’s ruling only applies to the Colt model because of the “variety of firearms regulated in the Assault Firearms Law and the nuances that each individual firearm presents” and because the evidence in this case concerned the AR-15.

The gun rights groups, including the New Jersey Association of Rifle and Pistol Clubs and the national Firearms Policy Coalition, filed notice appealing the judge’s ruling upholding the magazine ban, court records show.

“Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are immoral and unconstitutional,” FPC President Brandon Combs said in a statement Tuesday.

“FPC will continue to fight forward until all of these bans are eliminated throughout the United States.”

FAFO Factor 10

Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh killed in Iran

CAIRO, July 31 (Reuters) – Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated in the early hours of the morning in Iran, the Palestinian militant group said on Wednesday, drawing fears of wider escalation in a region shaken by Israel’s war in Gaza and a worsening conflict in Lebanon.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards confirmed the death of Haniyeh, hours after he attended a swearing in ceremony for the country’s new president, and said it was investigating.

There was no immediate comment from Israel. The Israeli military said it was conducting a situational assessment but had not issued any new security guidelines for civilians.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Washington would work to try to ease tensions but said the United States would help defend Israel if it were attacked.

The news, which came less than 24 hours after Israel claimed to have killed the Hezbollah commander it said was behind a deadly strike in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, appears to set back chances of any imminent ceasefire agreement in Gaza.

“This assassination by the Israeli occupation of Brother Haniyeh is a grave escalation that aims to break the will of Hamas,” senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters.
He said Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that ruled Gaza, would continue the path it was following, adding: “We are confident of victory.”
Iran’s top security body is expected to meet to decide Iran’s strategy in reaction to the death of Haniyeh, a close ally of Tehran, said a source with knowledge of the meeting.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas condemned the killing of Haniyeh and Palestinian factions in the occupied West Bank called for a general strike and mass demonstrations.
Haniyeh, normally based in Qatar, has been the face of the Palestinian group’s international diplomacy as the war set off by the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7 has raged in Gaza, where three of his sons were killed in an Israeli airstrike.

The International Criminal Court prosecutor office requested an arrest warrant for him over alleged war crimes at the same time it issued a similar request against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Appointed to the Hamas top job in 2017, Haniyeh has moved between Turkey and Qatar’s capital Doha, escaping the travel curbs of the blockaded Gaza Strip and enabling him to act as a negotiator in ceasefire talks or to talk to Hamas’ ally Iran.

The assassination of Haniyeh comes as Israel’s campaign in Gaza approaches the end of its 10th month with no sign of an end to a conflict that has shaken the Middle East and threatened to spiral into a wider regional conflict.

Despite anger at Netanyau’s government from families of the Israeli hostages still held in Gaza and mounting international pressure for a ceasefire, talks brokered by Egypt and Qatar appear to have faltered.
At the same time, the risk of a war between Israel and Hezbollah has grown following the strike in the Golan Heights that killed 12 children in a Druze village on Saturday and the subsequent killing of the senior Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr.

The war started on Oct. 7 when Hamas-led fighters broke through security barriers around Gaza and launched a devastating attack on Israeli communities nearby, killing 1,200 people and abducting some 250 hostages into Gaza.

In response, Israel launched a relentless ground and air offensive in the densely populated coastal enclave that has killed more than 39,000 people and left more than 2 million facing a severe humanitarian crisis.

Resident shoots and kills man suspected of breaking into Oceanside home
Oceanside Police investigating shooting as potential self-defense incident.

OCEANSIDE, Calif. (KGTV) – A resident shot and killed a man suspected in a home invasion attempt in Oceanside, according to police.

Oceanside Police said officers were dispatched to the 4100 block of Diamond Circle at around 7:22 pm. Monday due to a reported assault with a deadly weapon incident.

Police said two residents — a male and a female — were inside the house when an unknown man armed with a rock and a stick entered the backyard and then made his way through a bedroom sliding door. Police noted the female resident was in the bedroom when the intruder entered.

According to police, the intruder threw the rock at the male resident and hit him in the face.

The injured resident grabbed a gun and fired at least three shots, striking the intruder once in the chest.

Emergency responders attempted life-saving measures, but the intruder — described as a 22-year-old man — was pronounced dead at the scene.

Police at the scene told ABC 10News the resident who fired the shots was not arrested; the shooting is being investigated by the OPD’s Crimes of Violence Uni as a potential self-defense incident.

Neighbors rattled by break-in attempts, gunfire

Isabel and Matthew Cole didn’t hear the gunshots, but around 7:30 p.m. Monday night, they heard someone scream.

“We heard a scream, and we thought it was kids playing because it was really muffled. One of our neighbors came and got us and they said that someone was on the loose and they were breaking into people’s houses and backyards,” said Matthew Cole. “Everybody who lived here came outside of the house, and we were all looking around to see if the person came into our backyard, but by then, the police were already here.”

Oceanside Police said the man attempted to break into 5 to 7 homes in the neighborhood.

One of the affected residents showed ABC 10News the mess that was left behind in their backyard after a break-in attempt.

The resident said they don’t think he took anything.

Meanwhile, the Coles said it looks like the man tried to get through their back gate but wasn’t successful.

“The whole time we’ve lived here we’d go out to our car at night. We’d walk around like when he has to go potty, we take him out. So, we honestly never thought anything like that would happen around here because it’s so quiet,” said Isabel Cole.

She added, “Thinking about how close it was, I’m grateful it wasn’t us, but I feel so bad for our neighbors. I know they looked pretty spooked, and a couple of other neighbors are pretty spooked about it.”

All Real Gun-Control Conversations Boil Down To This

I have spent a great deal of time over the last two decades debating gun-control advocates both within the United States and abroad. Naturally, the circumstances and details of these debates can be different, but the fundamental claims they make are broadly the same. Here is an attempt to distill into one conversation the criticisms that commonly appear, and the sound arguments I have found effective in countering them.

They often begin with someting like: “Charles, we have to do something about guns.”
“Okay, I’m listening,” I respond. “What do you want to do?”

I want common-sense gun control.
Such as?

Well, we could start by accepting that the Second Amendment doesn’t even protect the right to keep and bear arms. That idea was made up by Antonin Scalia in 2008.
Ah. I’m afraid that you’ve fallen here for a debunked conspiracy theory. In truth, the right to keep and bear arms has been a part of American life since the 17th century. It was respected in colonial America—and in many colonial and state constitutions—long before the Constitution was written; it was acknowledged and reaffirmed by every major legal scholar of the 18th and 19th centuries; it was explicitly extended to all Americans by the drafters of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the two postbellum Freedmens Bureau Acts, and the 14th Amendment; and it was accepted by 80% of the American public prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller. The U.S. Bill of Rights protects individual liberties; there is no such thing as a “collective right” in that document. The right, as the Second Amendment makes clear, is “of the people.”

Fine. But it’s an amendment. It was, itself, a change. Doesn’t that tell you something? It, too, could be amended.
Not really. The Second Amendment is, indeed, an “amendment” to the original Constitution, albeit one that was added only two years after the Constitution went into effect. But, contrary to your implication, it wasn’t the result of shifting political attitudes or of a debate over policy, but of a desire to make sure that Americans’ fundamental liberties were clearly protected. When James Madison introduced the proposed U.S. Bill of Rights into Congress, he made it clear that he had included only those provisions that were entirely uncontroversial. As a historical matter, the term “amendment” is a misnomer when applied to the first 10 changes. They are more accurately described as the price of admission for the ratification of the Constitution, as that was the agreement at the time.

Okay, but surely things have changed?
What has “changed,” exactly? Human nature? Man’s capacity for evil? The intrinsic right to self-defense—be it against an individual who would do you harm or a government that has turned on its people?

The modern world is just different. Look at our technology!
Actually, I agree with that. The modern world is different. And, in some ways, it is true that the Founders couldn’t have imagined how we now live. But, that cuts against the argument for gun-control rather than in its favor. When the Founders talked of “tyranny,” they were referring most immediately to a largely benign British Empire that, until it started to meddle in unacceptable ways, had mostly left the American colonies alone. There is no way that they could have conceived of the scale of the horrors that would be inflicted in the 20th century by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, communist China and others. The case for the Second Amendment was watertight in 1789. By 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, it was unassailable.

But America isn’t like those places, is it?
No, mercifully, America is not like those places. But it’s a little bit odd to make that point while you’re trying to remove one of the reasons that America is not like those places, isn’t it? America is free in part because of the U.S. Constitution. You can’t start removing or undermining parts of that Constitution and just assume that everything would remain exactly the same after you’d done it.

Ha! So you think that if America became a tyranny, the people could fight back with small arms?
Yes, I do think that. And, perhaps more importantly, I think that America would have no chance of becoming a tyranny while the people remain well-armed. But I must ask you: Can you hear yourself? You’re positing the possibility that the United States would become a tyranny while worrying about the citizenry being armed. What, in the last three centuries of human history, has given you the idea that the problem to be solved is that free people have arms?

Crime has given me that idea. Criminals use guns! We have to stop that.
How?

By banning guns!
By banning guns for whom?

In the past, laws that permit the government to choose who may carry firearms have invariably been used to disarm minorities and the poor.

For everyone!
There are half a billion privately owned firearms in the United States. Even if you could convince the public to (a) repeal the Second Amendment, and (b) usher in a societal change that would rival the failed prohibition of alcohol, it would still be the height of naivety to believe that the criminals that you were attempting to disarm would be affected by the ploy. By definition, criminals do not follow the law. The only thing that deters them is the fear that other people—that is, the people who don’t commit the crimes—will be able to fight back.

You’re talking about the myth of a good guy with a gun?
The myth? It’s hardly a myth! Concealed-carriers in the United States are among the most law-abiding people in the country. Indeed, data out of Texas and Florida shows that they are up to seven times more law-abiding than the police. And you only need to open a newspaper to discover that concealed-carriers stop crimes on a regular basis. Why, I must ask, would you wish to take the guns away from the people who aren’t the problem?

Okay, so if you need someone to act as a deterrent, why not let the police have guns and take them away from everyone else?
Leaving aside the other problems associated with disarming a free people, may I ask if you’ve ever been to the United States? Or, if you have been to the United States, if you’ve ever been outside of the cities? America is an enormous place. Even if it were a good idea to limit gun ownership to the police, it would remain the case that the vast majority of areas in America are too big or too remote to be effectively policed.

Then make them gun-free zones!
Are you serious? The solution to the threats posed by criminals or by wild animals is to put up a sign saying that nobody is allowed to be armed and that the bad guys must follow the laws?

Okay, fine, but shouldn’t we at least decide who is allowed to carry a gun and who is not?
Do you mean that we should prohibit felons, children, tourists and the mentally ill from carrying firearms? Because we already do that.

No, I mean that the government should choose which citizens are allowed to carry and which are not.
Ah, I see. Do you know how that has worked out in history?

What do you mean?
I mean that, while I accept that this may not be your motivation, the history of gun control in the United States has been inextricable from the history of racism and discrimination. In the past, laws that permit the government to choose who may carry firearms have invariably been used to disarm minorities, the politically unpopular and the poor.

Well, obviously, I don’t want to do that. I’m nice! But could we perhaps impose some strict training requirements and high fees?
So that only wealthier people can exercise their rights?

No, so that the country is safer.
What evidence do you have for the proposition that limiting the rights of law-abiding people would make the country safer? Many states have now abolished their permitting systems completely, and the change has had no effect whatsoever on crime.

What about background checks? We don’t have any!
That’s not true. All commercial sales require a background check; all sales over the internet must be shipped to a dealer, who performs a check; and there is no such thing as the “gun-show loophole.” Private, intrastate transfers are not federally regulated, because, as well as being intrusive, expensive and practically impossible, federal regulation would require the creation of a gun registry.

Gun control so often fails because a majority of Americans want to keep their freedom.

What’s wrong with a gun registry?
For a start, they don’t do anything to prevent or help solve crime, which is why many of the most anti-gun jurisdictions in the United States, plus countries such as Canada, have abandoned theirs. They’re also a problem for civil liberties, as they can leak—or be leaked. And, historically, they have been used by tyrannical governments to enable confiscation.

Fine. Then ban semi-automatics.
What is a semi-automatic?

It’s a machine gun.
No, it’s not. That’s an “automatic.” A “semi-automatic” is a standard firearm that fires one round with each depression of the trigger. Far from being exotic, the term “semi-automatic” describes more than 200 million firearms in the United States, including the most commonly owned rifles and the vast majority of handguns sold. The technology has been around since the 1880s—during the presidency of Grover Cleveland.

Well, we can at least ban the AR-15.
Why?

Because it’s an assault weapon.
What does that mean?

It means that it’s more dangerous than other guns. It’s a weapon of war.
It’s neither of those things. It’s a standard semi-automatic rifle, of the type that has been owned in America for 140 years; moreover, it’s used so infrequently in crimes, that the FBI doesn’t even bother to keep statistics. In 2019, rifles—that’s all rifles, not just so-called “assault weapons”—were used in around 2.6% of all homicides committed in the United States. By way of context, that’s about as many homicides as were committed with clubs and hammers, about half as many homicides as were committed with hands and feet and about a quarter as many homicides as were committed with knives.

But we banned them before. We can do it again.
Actually, we can’t. The Second Amendment protects weapons that are in common use, and the AR-15 most definitely meets that description. Besides, every study shows that the ban on so-called “assault weapons” that was in effect between 1994 and 2004 did nothing. I thought you wanted to improve things?

Well, we have to do something. And we would, if it weren’t for the NRA!
This is a misconception. The NRA, among many other things, does political advocacy. The NRA has been highly effective in persuading the public to help protect the right to keep and bear arms, but it enjoys no power in the American system of government outside of that role. The primary reason that the gun-control movement has failed to achieve its objectives in recent decades is that the public steadfastly opposes its agenda. The simple truth here is that, in both Congress and in the states, the votes aren’t there because the voters aren’t there.

But the courts have blocked common-sense gun control!
It is certainly true that the courts have upheld the original meaning of the Second Amendment in recent years. But, as of yet, the practical effects of this have been limited to a handful of recalcitrant states whose laws were so extreme as to have forced the judiciary’s hands. Thus far, the shift in favor of the right to keep and bear arms has been driven by the electorate, not by judges.

Gah. I just hate guns.
And that’s your prerogative. But all you’re telling me by noting that is that you, personally, aren’t a threat to anyone. That’s good. But it doesn’t help us solve the problem, which is that there are people who aren’t like you who exhibit ill-intent toward others. Those people don’t care whether or not you like guns. They don’t care about gun-free zones. They don’t care about permitting processes. This is why law-abiding citizens need the right to keep and bear arms.

New York judge declines to appoint monitor for NRA, bans former CEO Wayne LaPierre from working with group
Ruling came amid four-year legal battle between gun rights group and New York state

A New York judge on Monday decided not to assign an outside monitor to oversee the National Rifle Association (NRA), but banned Wayne LaPierre, the former CEO of the gun rights group, from employment with the organization for ten years.

The split decision from Judge Joel Cohen came on the final day of arguments in the second stage of the civil trial of the NRA brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Cohen said appointing a monitor to oversee the NRA wasn’t a correct remedy, saying it would be “time-consuming, disruptive and will impose significant costs on the NRA without corresponding benefits.”

He also voiced concerns about potential government intrusion into the gun rights organization.

“Today’s developments validate the NRA’s reform efforts and commitment to good governance – and recognize the First Amendment stakes of this case,” NRA attorney William A. Brewer III said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “Based on the record established at trial, the court rejected the NYAG’s request for a monitor.”

LaPierre said appointing a monitor to oversee the NRA’s finances would be the “equivalent to putting a knife straight through the heart of the organization and twisting it.”

“General James will have achieved her objective to fulfill that campaign promise of, in effect, dissolving the NRA for a lack of money and a lack of members,” he said.

In a statement, NRA President Bob Barr said the group is committed to improving its “good governance.”

NY Attorney General Letitia James during an inauguration ceremony in 2019
Attorney General of New York, Letitia James, vowed to take on the NRA and called the group a “terrorist organization.” (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)

“As the NRA committed to the court, we will continue to pursue improvements to our commitment to good governance,” Barr said. “We thank the board for its support and salute our loyal members. Freedom prevails, again.”

LaPierre resigned from the organization earlier this year, citing health reasons. James brought a corruption case against the former CEO, who was accused of siphoning millions of dollars from the NRA to fund a lavish lifestyle complete with trips on private jets and other luxury gifts.

Prior to being elected, James vowed to take on the NRA and called the group a “terrorist organization.” The NRA has accused James of weaponizing her office to target the group.

In 2020, she brought a lawsuit accusing NRA leadership of violating state and federal laws to divert millions of dollars to their own pockets.

A jury ordered LaPierre to repay almost $4.4 million to the organization, while the NRA’s retired finance chief, Wilson “Woody” Phillips, was ordered to pay back $2 million.

Following Monday’s ruling, NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Doug Hamlin said the group plans to move “full speed ahead” with its mission.

“We have a mission to fulfill and elections to win up and down the ballot,” he said. “This is a major step toward rebuilding the trust of the members, donors, industry, and our staff.”