Not without a replacement governmental structure ready to go, because, you know… THE. RULE. OF. LAW.
“Anarchy, therefore, is an always-fleeting interstitial period between a bad government and an even worse government.”
Not without a replacement governmental structure ready to go, because, you know… THE. RULE. OF. LAW.
“Anarchy, therefore, is an always-fleeting interstitial period between a bad government and an even worse government.”
Happy Saturday, everyone.
Here’s the Anthem:
I have embarked on a week-long interview series with Patrick Archbold over at CreativeMinorityReport.com. Part 1 is now up.
I am reminded of this quote from St. John Chrysostom’s Homily 46:
“Let us, then, come back from that (Eucharistic) Table like lions breathing out fire, thus becoming terrifying to the devil, and remaining mindful of our Head and of the love which He has shown for us.”
That would be Pope Leo XIII. Here are some choice excerpts from his Encyclical SPAIENTIAE CHRISTIANAE – On Christians as Citizens, from January ARSH 1890, which was recently brought to my attention. And boy, did it ever get my attention.
HERE IS THE LINK TO THE FULL DOCUMENT, which I cannot recommend strongly enough. If you can, print it out and take a highlighter to it. You might run out of highlighter ink before you get through it. Every paragraph is a manful, crystal-clear tour de force. Read this, and then compare it to the nebulous, wishy-washy, clear-as-mud Marxist, Modernist rhetoric we get today. When you read Leo XIII you comprehend EXACTLY what he is saying immediately. Bam. Pow. Here it is. Take it or leave it. 2+2=4. Period.
I can’t resist posting these excerpts, because he is speaking directly to us. “Relevant” doesn’t begin to do it justice. All emphases are mine.
From paragraph 2, (confirming) my position that the United States no longer actually exists as a licit state:
…if, in administering public affairs, it [government] is wont to put God aside, and show no solicitude for the upholding of moral law, it deflects woefully from its right course and from the injunctions of nature; nor should it be accounted as a society or a community of men, but only as the deceitful imitation or appearance of a society.
From paragraph 4, (confirming) my position that people are responsible for both their government and for their knowledge (or lack thereof) of the faith – especially in this day and age wherein the sum of human knowledge is available instantly on the internet, to which you all obviously have access:
Considering that forthwith upon salvation being brought out for mankind, Jesus Christ laid upon His Apostles the injunction to “preach the Gospel to every creature,” He imposed, it is evident, upon all men the duty of learning thoroughly and believing what they were taught. This duty is intimately bound up with the gaining of eternal salvation: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be condemned.”
From paragraph 5, shooting down the false premise so commonly held today that “Render unto Caesar” implies equality of the state, or even a supremacy of the state over God and His Holy Church with regards to loyalty and earthly submission:
We are bound, then, to love dearly the country whence we have received the means of enjoyment this mortal life affords, but we have a much more urgent obligation to love, with ardent love, the Church to which we owe the life of the soul, a life that will endure forever. For fitting it is to prefer the good of the soul to the well-being of the body, inasmuch as duties toward God are of a far more hallowed character than those toward men.
From paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 speaking directly to right action when a state is in open conflict with God:
For, instances occur where the State seems to require from men as subjects one thing, and religion, from men as Christians, quite another; and this in reality without any other ground, than that the rulers of the State either hold the sacred power of the Church of no account, or endeavor to subject it to their own will. Hence arises a conflict, and an occasion, through such conflict, of virtue being put to the proof. The two powers are confronted and urge their behests in a contrary sense; to obey both is wholly impossible. No man can serve two masters, for to please the one amounts to contemning the other.
7. As to which should be preferred no one ought to balance for an instant. It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men, an act of consummate wickedness to break the laws of Jesus Christ, in order to yield obedience to earthly rulers, or, under pretext of keeping the civil law, to ignore the rights of the Church; “we ought to obey God rather than men.” This answer, which of old Peter and the other Apostles were used to give the civil authorities who enjoined unrighteous things, we must, in like circumstances, give always and without hesitation. No better citizen is there, whether in time of peace or war, than the Christian who is mindful of his duty; but such a one should be ready to suffer all things, even death itself, rather than abandon the cause of God or of the Church.
8. Hence, they who blame, and call by the name of sedition, this steadfastness of attitude in the choice of duty have not rightly apprehended the force and nature of true law.
From paragraph 10 on the positive duty of civil disobedience and the false charge of sedition:
But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are “to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word,” at once adds: “And to be ready to every good work.” Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them.
And, for those who send me hate mail telling me that I have no right or authority to say, well, anything about anything (mostly cuckoo-pants sedevacantists who hate me because I don’t want to round up and murder every person on the planet with Jewish DNA), here ya go from paragraph 14:
But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: “Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.” To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good….Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.
And then paragraph 16:
No one, however, must entertain the notion that private individuals are prevented from taking some active part in this duty of teaching, especially those on whom God has bestowed gifts of mind with the strong wish of rendering themselves useful. These, so often as circumstances demand, may take upon themselves, not, indeed, the office of the pastor, but the task of communicating to others what they have themselves received, becoming, as it were, living echoes of their masters in the faith. Such co-operation on the part of the laity has seemed to the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council so opportune and fruitful of good that they thought well to invite it. “All faithful Christians, but those chiefly who are in a prominent position, or engaged in teaching, we entreat, by the compassion of Jesus Christ, and enjoin by the authority of the same God and Saviour, that they bring aid to ward off and eliminate these errors from holy Church, and contribute their zealous help in spreading abroad the light of undefiled faith.” Let each one, therefore, bear in mind that he both can and should, so far as may be, preach the Catholic faith by the authority of his example, and by open and constant profession of the obligations it imposes. In respect, consequently, to the duties that bind us to God and the Church, it should be borne earnestly in mind that in propagating Christian truth and warding off errors the zeal of the laity should, as far as possible, be brought actively into play.
There’s more. Just go read it and bask in the radiance of manful, intransigent faith manifested in supremely coherent and understandable prose. Sigh.
Scalia’s dissent on the Obamacare verdict, despite all of its bravado, is utterly, totally devoid of virtue or merit unless and until Scalia RESIGNS.
This is the point I have been desperately trying to make for years, to pretty much zero avail. Continuing to engage a blatantly, obviously illegitimate paradigm is totally irrational and immoral, and belies a serious lack of character. Scalia can give us all the rhetorical candy he can come up with, but until he resigns he is a rank hypocrite, and this is undeniable precisely because he has demonstrated in writing, in a SCOTUS dissent no less, that he sees and understands exactly what the situation is vis-a-vis the Rule of Law in the former United States.
But, but, but… his SALARY! And his PENSION! And, and, and people might not be nice to him if he resigns in protest! And, and, and that would just give Obama the ability to appoint another commie!
Because after having the entire notion of the Rule of Law formally and explicitly shredded in the Obamacare decision, and the Natural Law CRIMINALIZED in the sodomite marriage decision a few minutes ago, WE HAVE SO MUCH TO LOSE AT THIS POINT. Am I following your thought process correctly? Boy, if Obama gets to appoint another SCOTUS seat, something REALLY BAD MIGHT HAPPEN! Do I have that about right? Eyeroll.
It’s over. It’s been over for years. We all consented to living under the Law of the United States of America and consented to pay taxes TO THAT NATION. That nation NO. LONGER. FLIPPING. EXISTS. and hasn’t for years. What you must now decide is whether or not you CONSENT to be governed by an explicitly, openly evil tyrannical oligarchy. The most clear and obvious sign of consent is the paying of taxes. Just sayin’.
1. So back in March ARSH 2013 when the PERONIST FASCIST JESUIT WHO HATES THE MASS OF THE AGES AND DOES NOT GENUFLECT TO THE BLESSED SACRAMENT was elected pope, I warned one and all IMMEDIATELY that disaster would ensue. Because… OBVIOUS. What people say and what people do MATTER, no matter how much we have been inculcated in this post-Christian cesspit of a culture into believing that PEOPLE’S WORDS AND DEEDS ARE NOT A RELIABLE MEANS OF ASSAYING THEIR CHARACTER. Huh? WHA???
Use the navigation on the right side of this page to go back and review what I was writing from mid-March of 2013 on. I laid it all out. I laid it all out and I was attacked from all sides, including “traditional Catholics”. So… are y’all finally ready to grow the hell up, cut your infantile papolotry and face objective reality now? Bergoglio is a force of spiritual destruction on a scale never before seen. What he does almost every single day is called “scandal”. Let’s look at the formal definition of scandal in the Catechism:
II. Respect for the Dignity of Persons
Respect for the souls of others: scandal
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.86
2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.” This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,88 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.
2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”
Just consider this: how many Christian people are ISIS going to confirm and ratify in mortal sin? How many people are going to throw up their hands and walk away from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass never to return because of what Obama says or does? Relatively few. But Francis? How many people listen to this slack-jawed psycho-brat and then AS A DIRECT RESULT either become even more entrenched in their sins, OR reject the Body and Bride of Christ altogether? Millions. Millions and millions, and we’re just getting started, because the “Francis Effect” will not only outlive Bergoglio, but last until Our Lord returns in Glory.
2. The best takedown of the cat litterbox liner document “Laudato… Um, NO” was penned over at The Remnant. I especially loved the part about how we all encounter God in a sacrament of communion with dust bunnies, or some unqualified bullshit like that. So, yeah, I guess I’m gonna have to quit my job at the Place Where I Clean All the Things because now I should be falling down on my knees and worshiping the dust bunnies – and also the Poor – instead of sweeping them up into my dustpan and throwing them in the trash. The dust bunnies, not the Poor.
3. So, just reiterating, the entire man-caused climate change thing is 110% bullshit. And as we have discussed so many times before, when one begins with a false premise and then tries to build a logical truth table atop that false premise, ALL output from that truth table is, oh, what’s the fancy mathematical term…? Oh yes, BULLSHIT. There is nothing wrong with the planet on a macro scale. Even the Chinese air pollution, which is a pure function of the incomparable Chinese greed, clears out when the factories are idled and a front blows through. Um, that’s what they did when they had the Olympics. And CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT A POLLUTANT. Anyone who tells you it is is either a liar or an imbecile.
4. So, Bergoglio has absolutely no problem spewing lies if it serves his worldly agenda, AND WE HAVE KNOWN THIS FOR A LONG TIME. In September of ARSH 2013 Pope Francis Bergoglio went to the Church of St. John Lateran in Rome and said:
“I dare to say that the church has never been so well as it is today,”
You know, after sloughing off something like 90% of Mass-goers in less than 50 years. Oh, and having the ranks of priests and nuns totally overrun and decimated by sodomites. Yeah. Never better.
So we knew for a metaphysical certitude back then that he was either an inveterate liar, teetering on the precipice of mental retardation, or utterly detached from reality. Oh, would that the Vicar of Christ on earth were MERELY insane. He is not insane. He is a combination of stupidity and malignancy, and as time goes on I am becoming more convinced that the malignancy far, far outpaces the stupidity, and that’s saying something, because he is, in fact, dumber than a bag of hammers.
5. To wit:
On Sunday while in Turin, Pope Francis within a matter of seconds apart declared that all arms manufacturers ARE NOT CHRISTIANS (apparently he is not able to judge teh butt sex, but is capable of judging people who produce tools that keep musloids from raping their children to death and sawing their heads off), and then ranted that the Allies should have bombed the railroads in WWII. The guy is a complete moron.
With regards to The Poor, whom we are all supposed to fall down on our knees and REVERENCE according to Bergoglio, why in the world would we want to make the Poor be NOT poor? If being Poor is an intrinsically superior state, worthy of reverence and acts of worship, why is poverty a problem? Isn’t making the Poor not poor actually knocking them down a peg? If God loves the Poor best, why would we ever think that being poor is a problem, much less an injustice that must be eradicated by any means necessary? If the Gospel makes no sense without the Poor, won’t eliminating all material poverty render Christianity utterly meaningless? Why are you constantly complaining about a state of being which you are constantly telling us is intrinsically superior?
GEE, YOU THINK BERGOGLIO JUST MIGHT BE A MARXIST SOCIOPATH WHO DOESN’T ACTUALLY BELIEVE ANY OF THAT CHRISTIANITY BULLSHIT?
Do you think God might be angry with us for sitting by and aloofly watching the world go to hell in a hand basket? Hmmmm? You think St. John Eudes might have been on to something?? HMMMMMM??
Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.
PATER NOSTER, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.
(AKA “Married by the Bible, Divorced by the Synod”)
What a strange world we live in, what a shame oh what a shame
Someone’s always quarrelin’ then marriage don’t remain
Divorces by the thousands, is this human race insane
I always thought that marriage should be a sacred thing
Married by the Bible divorced by the law
Everyday there’s more and more the worst I ever saw
Things have changed they’re not the same as the days of ma and pa
They were married by the Bible no divorces by the law
Steps are often taken without thinking twice
And oft times a there’s child or two who’s left to pay the price
Those little hearts so innocent they don’t know who’s to blame
No mom and dad to love them what a shame oh what a shame
It’s a red-letter day when an operational arm of the Washington D.C. regime puts out a fatwa/hit on you. The SPLC is hand-in-glove with both the DC regime’s so-called Department of Justice (snorf), and the musloid Caliphate (but I repeat myself), and what this is is a very, very thinly-veiled (pun intended) call for the jihadis already in place to hunt and kill me and the other eleven ladies on the list. The DOJ and FBI will look the other way should the retards (not a mere slang pejorative – their family trees are straight lines) actually get lucky, and it will all disappear down the gaping maw of the 36 hour news cycle, so the green light is given.
So be it. In fact, I was just thinking about how it has been too, too long since I have done a koran conflagration/bacon fry. In fact, I think the next koran burning I do should be IN PUBLIC. I hear Montgomery, Alabama is just lovely this time of year.
Interestingly, every word of the text is true except for two errors. The foreclosure sale of my office/condo was at the price of the balance on the mortgage, so the IRS got nothing, and my tax lien has not only NOT been satisfied, it has continued to grow. Heh. Second, I did not burn the koran with “a” bacon bookmark. I burned the koran with FOURTEEN bacon bookmarks. I sacrificed an entire package of perfectly good bacon, defiling it by touching the koran with it, in service to mankind. I had to throw away all of that bacon. No BLTs. No hot bacon vinaigrette. No pancakes fried in bacon grease, with crisp rashers drizzled in maple syrup. DO NOT MINIMIZE THE BACON SACRIFICE.
And seeing the multitudes, He went up into a mountain, and when He was set down, His disciples came unto Him. And opening His mouth, He taught them, saying: Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5: 1-3
The First Beatitude is another grossly misread and misunderstood verse, with the misunderstanding being a recent phenomenon, spurred by a conscientious perversion of the meaning of the verse by Marxist infiltrators beginning in the 20th century. And now most especially by Pope Francis Bergoglio, who is the quintessential fulfillment of St. John Eudes’ stern admonition:
“The most evident mark of God’s anger, and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world, is manifest when He permits His people to fall into the hands of a clergy who are more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. They abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world and, in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits. When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people and is visiting His most dreadful wrath upon them.” ——Saint John Eudes
Most people read this verse and see the words “blessed” and “poor” and think that Jesus is saying that poor people are morally superior to rich people. You can see why Marxists, like Bergoglio, jumped all over this verse. They have twisted it into a class warfare battle cry. Other people see the words “blessed” and “poor” and also the prepositional modifier “in spirit”, have no idea what to make of it, glaze over, start thinking about football or Zumba class, and just smile and nod like the Stepford Baptized Pagan-zombies that they are.
I’m a huge fan of punctuation. Especially properly-utilized apostrophes. But I’m also a fan of ellipses and the humble comma.
“Let’s eat Grandma!” or, “Let’s eat, Grandma!”
PUNCTUATION. SAVES. LIVES.
I think that we can understand the First Beatitude with far more ease if we slip a set of “here comes the kicker pregnant pause” ellipses in between the subject, “the poor”, and the prepositional phrase, “in spirit.” Thus:
Blessed are the poor . . . in spirit.
Does that help? Our Lord isn’t saying that poor people are by definition morally superior to rich people. Not at all. Common sense tells us that that is simply not true. What He is saying is that a person who is detached from their wealth and is willing to take the First Commandment literally and seriously, put God first, and “push their chips all-in”, to use a poker metaphor, is truly blessed. So, given this, ANYONE within the wealth spectrum, rich or poor, can possess this virtue. This also means that anyone within the wealth spectrum can LACK this virtue. There are two separate classifications that we need to address and combine in order to understand this dynamic: poor in spirit and poor in fact, and their antipodes, rich in spirit and rich in fact. If we form a matrix of these characteristics, there are four possible output combinations. Let’s go through each.
Poor in spirit and poor in fact:
This is a person who does not have any great wealth, but is also content and still maintains a spirit of generosity and gratitude. This condition is exemplified by the parable of the Widow’s mite in Mark 12: 41-44. The poor widow gave the smallest tithe in absolute terms, but it was greater than the tithes of the rich because, “she of her want cast in all she had, even her whole living.” The widow was detached even from what little she had, even though on a percentage basis it far, far exceeded what the rich tithed. The widow was both poor in fact, and poor in spirit.
Rich in spirit and poor in fact:
This is the person who lives beyond their means and is preoccupied with the APPEARANCE and ACQUISITION of wealth. (Cough, cough. Ring any bells? Ahem.) This is the person who leverages himself out the gazoo so that he can have the 4000 square foot house and the luxury car . . . even though he only makes $65k per year. This would also be the welfare denizen who scoffs at honest work and lives off of the government, but has a 55″ LCD TV and PlayStation, and has multi-thousand dollar hair extensions and intricately manicured fingernails. No. Way. Girl. I did NOT just go there. Oh yes I did.
Rich in spirit, rich in fact:
This is the rich person who is very much attached to their wealth, and places the preservation of their wealth as their top priority. I did an interview on Peter Schiff’s streamed-to-video radio show not long after I shut down Barnhardt Capital Management in late ARSH 2011, which Schiff has since removed from YouTube. But, this is the transcript of the exchange that speaks directly to this topic:
Schiff: Let me ask you, your call for a strike, what exactly does that entail? If people wanted to follow what you’re saying, how would we have a strike? What would people do?
Ann: Close all of your securities accounts, bring all of your money home and stop trading all markets: futures, stocks, everything. Man up, act like you’ve got a pair and shut it down.
Schiff: Well, that would put me out of business. I mean, if all of my customers would close down their . . . .
And there you have it. Peter Schiff, like almost everyone else in our culture, can’t fully acknowledge the objective reality of what is happening, and thus can not respond in a fully virtuous way because he is, first and foremost, attached to his wealth and simply can not bring himself to push his wealth “all-in” in service to justice and truth. In other words, he can’t get past the First Commandment. If we take him at his word in the quote above, he will not tell his clients that they are at risk, recommend that they liquidate, or shut down his firm because he is attached to and has defined himself by his firm and the wealth that it generates for him.
Now please understand the distinction here: Mr. Schiff’s firm and the wealth it has amassed Mr. Schiff is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself – no more so than my firm and the wealth that it generated for me over the years was “bad”. Not only are these things not necessarily bad, they actually have the potential to be good! What IS bad is the inordinate ATTACHMENT and unwillingness to LAY DOWN that “good thing” in service to a GREATER GOOD, which in this case is justice and truth, which are constitutive qualities of God Himself. I was willing to lay my “good thing” down because I understood the First Beatitude and the promise of Christ that in laying down my “good thing” I might later inherit a far better thing, namely a wee little corner of the Kingdom of Heaven. As a trained arbitrageur, I recognize a good swap when I see it. Wink.
This is what Christ meant when He said, “And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved? And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19: 24-27
Our Lord isn’t saying that the rich are intrinsically evil purely because they are rich. That is what the Marxists want you to believe. He is saying that it is EXTREMELY difficult for wealthy people to maintain DETACHMENT from their wealth, and the richer people become, the more attached they tend to be to their wealth. But He goes on to say that there is hope! All things are possible through Him! Let’s all pray that Peter Schiff, and all wealthy people of good will, by the power of the Holy Ghost, are able to detach themselves from their wealth and shove that camel through that needle, because IT CAN BE DONE.
Poor in spirit, rich in fact:
Very simply, this is a person who is at any level of financial comfort above “poor” who is willing to push their wealth “all-in” if that is what is required to follow Christ fully. (The truly blessed then learn that The Van Down By The River not only isn’t so bad, it can be the best thing ever. But that requires a huge leap of faith. Trust me, I know.)