Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education
- from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."
The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.
The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration...
In all senses, the sun was shining on Jon Ossoff. It was early in the evening on a Sunday in late March, and the suddenly very visible 30-year-old Democratic candidate in the first competitive special congressional election of the Trump era was riding shotgun in a sooty-black Chrysler Sebring, hunched over a paper plate of cheese and crackers, while a member of his staff steered toward the next fund-raiser through the hills of suburban Atlanta. The back of the car was piled high with half a dozen Nike shoe boxes, a stuffed owl, and a reporter. Between bites, Ossoff stared ahead at the road, indulging in long pauses as he considered what to say about his new life as the luckiest young man in American politics. “There’s nothing that I would love more than a freewheeling conversation about political philosophy,” he said. “But I’m cautious because, as you know, the knives are out right now.”
That is not exactly how things appeared to most observers of this breakneck two-month campaign to fill the House seat vacated by Tom Price, the new secretary of Health and Human Services. Outside of the Sebring motorcade, Ossoff looks like the poster boy of the resistance, the grassroots opposition to both President Donald Trump and the wave of nationalism that installed him in office. He is a relative neophyte running 20 points ahead of a divided Republican field in a congressional district that hasn’t been blue since Jimmy Carter, also a Georgian, was president; an anonymous congressional aide turned documentary-film producer made into a national political figure mostly by love from readers of the Daily Kos; a pleasant, generic hipster-technocrat vessel into which an entire nation of angry Democrats has poured its electoral hopes (not to mention its millions of dollars — literally millions, a wild haul for a first-time nobody in a two-month race).
In this brave new post-2016 world, the Ossoff campaign is an experiment of sorts, a Trump-backlash trial balloon that might — on April 18, when the first round of voting is held, or on June 20, when the likely runoff will be completed — tell us just how much the president has reshaped the electoral map. It may also tell us that Democrats will have to do a whole lot more than just ride the wave of Trump hate to have a real chance of puncturing House Republicans’ red wall in 2018. Which is where Tom Perez, the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, tends to come down. “Our mistakes, I think, were not just in 2016,” he told me, sketching out his vision for how the party might win back control of the federal government. “Our mistakes were a number of years in the making. We ignored too many voters. We got away from a 50-state strategy. And we took too many people for granted.” Now, Perez said, he’s focused on making up for lost time, which includes plans to channel resources into Georgia’s Sixth District. “We’re going to work hard down there,” he said, “because underdogs win.”
By March, anti-Trump enthusiasm and the national spotlight had made the Ossoff campaign look considerably less underdog-y; most recent polls put him at 40 percent, within striking distance of a majority (which would win him the seat outright and allow him to avoid a runoff in which a Republican candidate could consolidate conservative voters). The Atlanta suburbs seemed so upended by the race it almost didn’t feel like the South at all; traveling from Trump’s Washington, D.C., to what Ossoff hopes will soon become his Georgia seat is like walking out of the Gathering of Juggalos and into the Metropolitan Opera. “He’s our hope,” Carol Finkelstein, a 71-year-old from Sandy Springs, told me in her placid living room on a recent Saturday, just before Ossoff took to the carpet to address her neighbors. “He can’t stop a runaway train, but I’m hoping he can at least be a voice of reason.” Nearby, Barbara Brown, a 93-year-old who’s also committed to voting for Ossoff, was less diplomatic. “I’m an Independent,” she told me. “My husband was the Republican, but we don’t have to worry about him anymore.”
The Wall Street Journal has pretty much eliminated access through Google search, which is why I don't link them much any more. They've really "built the wall," the subscription paywall, heh.
But Instapundit's block-quoted most of Jonathan Haidt's op-ed, so this is worth posting.
At the very moment where higher education is in trouble, it is dominated by a mindset that sets it in opposition to the mainstream culture. This will end well:
“People are sick and tired of being called racist for innocent things they’ve said or done,” Mr. Haidt observes. “The response to being called a racist unfairly is never to say, ‘Gee, what did I do that led to me being called this? I should be more careful.’ The response is almost always, ‘[Expletive] you!’ ”
He offers this real-world example: “I think that the ‘deplorables’ comment could well have changed the course of human history.”
Last week, we were treated to a news photo that will live in infamy: two dozen white male Republican congressmen (and zero women) around a White House conference table talking about dumping maternity and newborn care as part of their replacement for the Obama health care law.
It instantly went viral: “A rare look inside the GOP’s women’s health caucus,” tweeted Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington State.
Seven days later, the infamy was compounded when Vice President Mike Pence broke a 50-50 tie in the Senate that would allow states to defund Planned Parenthood.
Since the heyday of the women’s movement of the 1960s and ’70s, American women have assumed they were on a rocket to a future of assured gender equality. But even as individual women continued to break records and barriers in recent years, the engine began to stall.
Pay inequity festers. The rolling scandals at Uber remind us that the frat clubs of Silicon Valley are often rife with sexual harassment.
Women in the military are beleaguered by so-called revenge porn and sexual assault.
The United States still ranks with Swaziland, Lesotho and Papua New Guinea as the last countries on earth, “advanced” or not, that don’t mandate paid maternity leave.
In corporations, it’s turned out that the trouble isn’t the glass ceiling; it’s the sticky floor.
Male chief executives of Fortune 500 companies brag at Davos, Switzerland, about their healthy pipeline of women headed for the C-suite. (But the boast is undermined by statistics that show a paltry 4 percent of Fortune 500 companies have women in the top job.)
And a woman who commanded nearly three million more votes than her opponent did not become president...
Oh boy, where to begin?
Well, start with "pay inequity," which is a myth.
And of course the rampant "sexual harassment" we're seeing is found almost exclusively at far-left business concerns such as Uber. Why won't progressives clean up their own messes before foisting off all this bullshit on the rest of the public? And so no one wonders why "a woman who commanded nearly three million votes" failed to win the presidency. People see through the leftist cant.
In any case, more at that top link, if you can stomach it.
The story talks about David Rockefeller's grandson, Michael Quattrone (pictured), who manages the David Rockefeller Fund. The senior Rockeffer is said to have given away at least $2 billion to charity in his lifetime, and philanthropy's become the raison d'รชtre of the entire family. The younger members of the family convinced some of the family's biggest charitable funds (they are numerous, apparently) to divest from fossil fuels, the irony of which just kills me.
Alex Tizon, a journalist and professor who won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting while at The Seattle Times and spent decades exposing untold stories of marginalized communities, has died at age 57.
Mr. Tizon died unexpectedly Thursday, of natural causes, at his home in Eugene, Oregon, according to his family and the University of Oregon, where he was working as an assistant professor of journalism.
Mr. Tizon was one of three Seattle Times reporters to win the 1997 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting, for stories that exposed widespread corruption and inequalities in the federally sponsored housing program for Native Americans. The series, which documented how billions of dollars in taxpayer funds were helping wealthy people across the country live in mansions while tribes were housed in decrepit shacks, inspired reforms to the program.
Friends, colleagues and family members said Mr. Tizon was known as a deep listener who preferred to dive headfirst into complicated, long-form stories that are becoming rarer in today’s fast-paced media cycle. An introvert who spent hours alone brooding over deep issues like the meaning of his life, he would often take on seemingly simple stories and come back with complicated tales about humanity.
“He was very curious about other people — and learning about other people helped him learn about himself,” said his wife, Melissa Tizon. “That’s what journalism did for him. His whole life quest was about trying to understand who he was, as an immigrant growing up in a largely white community.”
Born in the Philippines, Mr. Tizon immigrated to Seattle with his family when he was 5 years old and bounced around the country before he settled back here.
He spent 17 years at The Seattle Times before becoming the Seattle bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times from 2003 to 2008. He also contributed to publications like Newsweek and programs such as “60 Minutes.”
He then spent two years in Manila, where he helped track efforts by the government to eliminate poverty in poor communities, and taught workshops in far-flung locales like Romania. And he wrote a memoir, “Big Little Man: In Search of My Asian Self,” about the challenges of being an Asian-American man in the United States.
He turned to teaching in 2011, but his passion for writing still burned.
A year ago, he revived a story he began working on at the Los Angeles Times a decade before, about an Alaskan family whose son had disappeared. People go missing there all the time — about 3,000 a year at one point — but in the remote corner of the world, it garners little attention or news coverage.
The family had learned that authorities had found remains that might provide closure to their grief. Mr. Tizon flew to the tiny town to write a lengthy magazine piece for The Atlantic on the family’s struggles and the broader phenomenon of why so many people vanish in that state.
Those who worked with Mr. Tizon said the story was emblematic of his career — the way he spent so much time deeply reporting the piece, and the fact that he chose a topic that others in the media likely would have ignored.
“He had a real interest in marginal characters and people who had not been in the spotlight,” said his editor on The Atlantic piece, Denise Wills. “He almost became a member of the extended family for these people.”
In an interview last year, Mr. Tizon told the Harvard journalism program: “The stories I work on, especially for any length of time, do tend to become personal to me.”
Jacqui Banaszynski, a University of Missouri journalism professor who was Mr. Tizon’s editor for two years at The Seattle Times, echoed others who said his death was a loss to the journalism community. She recalled Mr. Tizon as “an almost philosopher essayist” in his approach, and that the paper would send him on stories that were complex and needed to be told at a deeper level than the standard news story...
I've watched O'Reilly now for years. When I first started watching him regularly, at least ten years ago, I was mindful of the stereotypes, from critics both right and left: You know, how he's a blowhard, and not really conservative, and all that.
That's all true, of course, But he's a patriot who works hard. He loves the country and he models our values, especially individualism and fairness. I suspect he actually has sexually harassed women at some point. He's an old school kind of a guy, and some of the old school brusque "locker room" kind of banter and being is bound to slip out once in a while. He's wealthy, though, so million dollar payouts here and there, without conceding allegations, just make problems go away.
About $13 million has been paid out over the years to address complaints from women about Mr. O’Reilly’s behavior. He denies the claims have merit.
For nearly two decades, Bill O’Reilly has been Fox News’s top asset, building the No. 1 program in cable news for a network that has pulled in billions of dollars in revenues for its parent company, 21st Century Fox.
Behind the scenes, the company has repeatedly stood by Mr. O’Reilly as he faced a series of allegations of sexual harassment or other inappropriate behavior.
An investigation by The New York Times has found a total of five women who have received payouts from either Mr. O’Reilly or the company in exchange for agreeing to not pursue litigation or speak about their accusations against him. The agreements totaled about $13 million.
Two settlements came after the network’s former chairman, Roger Ailes, was dismissed last summer in the wake of a sexual harassment scandal, when the company said it did not tolerate behavior that “disrespects women or contributes to an uncomfortable work environment.”
The women who made allegations against Mr. O’Reilly either worked for him or appeared on his show. They have complained about a wide range of behavior, including verbal abuse, lewd comments, unwanted advances and phone calls in which it sounded as if Mr. O’Reilly was masturbating, according to documents and interviews.
The reporting suggests a pattern: As an influential figure in the newsroom, Mr. O’Reilly would create a bond with some women by offering advice and promising to help them professionally. He then would pursue sexual relationships with them, causing some to fear that if they rebuffed him, their careers would stall.
Of the five settlements, two were previously known — one for about $9 million in 2004 with a producer, and another struck last year with a former on-air personality, which The Times reported on in January. The Times has learned new details related to those cases...
That "on-air personality" is Juliet Huddy, who's no longer with the network.
I gave up on Boot last year, when he published his notorious screed at the L.A. Times, about changing his party registration after Donald Trump won the GOP nomination.
He still blogs at Commentary as well, which is one reason I don't read the magazine as much as I used to. (That, and Noah Rothman, who I like, turned into some kind of angry, middle-aged, and very unpleasant curmudgeon.)
BEIRUT, Lebanon — The United States launched more airstrikes in Yemen this month than during all of last year. In Syria, it has airlifted local forces to front-line positions and has been accused of killing civilians in airstrikes. In Iraq, American troops and aircraft are central in supporting an urban offensive in Mosul, where airstrikes killed scores of people on March 17.
Two months after the inauguration of President Trump, indications are mounting that the United States military is deepening its involvement in a string of complex wars in the Middle East that lack clear endgames.
Rather than representing any formal new Trump doctrine on military action, however, American officials say that what is happening is a shift in military decision-making that began under President Barack Obama. On display are some of the first indications of how complicated military operations are continuing under a president who has vowed to make the military “fight to win.”
In an interview on Wednesday, Gen. Joseph L. Votel, the commander of United States Central Command, said the new procedures made it easier for commanders in the field to call in airstrikes without waiting for permission from more senior officers.
“We recognized the nature of the fight was going to change and that we had to ensure that authorities were down to the right level and that we empowered the on-scene commander,” General Votel said. He was speaking specifically about discussions that he said began in November about how the fights in Syria and Iraq against the Islamic State were reaching critical phases in Mosul and Raqqa.
Concerns about the recent accusations of civilian casualties are bringing some of these details to light. But some of the shifts have also involved small increases in the deployment and use of American forces or, in Yemen, resuming aid to allies that had previously been suspended.
And they coincide with the settling in of a president who has vowed to intensify the fight against extremists abroad, and whose budgetary and rhetorical priorities have indicated a military-first approach even as he has proposed cuts in diplomatic spending...
The massive recent civilian causalities are extremely regrettable, and totally unacceptable. Otherwise, I'm really liking the growing footprint.
And interestingly, articles like this one, as true and tragic as they are, tend to perpetuate Native American stereotypes. Devon Mihesuah's work attempts to dispel such stereotypes, while others have argued that the reservation experience is the template for understanding the structural epistemology of American Indians.
WHITECLAY, Neb. — This town is a rural skid row, with only a dozen residents, a street strewn with debris, four ramshackle liquor stores and little else. It seems to exist only to sell beer to people like Tyrell Ringing Shield, a grandmother with silver streaks in her hair.
On a recent morning, she had hitched a ride from her home in South Dakota, just steps across the state line. There, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, alcohol is forbidden. In Whiteclay, though, it reigns supreme.
“You visit, you talk, you laugh, you drink,” said Ms. Ringing Shield, 57, as she stood on the sidewalk with friends, chain-smoked Montclair cigarettes and recounted her struggles with alcoholism, diabetes and cirrhosis. “It makes you forget.”
Now many residents of Nebraska and South Dakota are pushing for the liquor stores of Whiteclay to be shut, disgusted by the easy access to alcohol the stores provide to a people who have fought addiction for generations. The Nebraska authorities, in turn, have tightened scrutiny of the stores, which sell millions of cans of beer and malt liquor annually. Last year, for the first time, the state liquor commission ordered the stores’ six owners to reapply for their liquor licenses.
The fate of the stores could be decided next month, when the three-member commission holds hearings in Lincoln, the state capital.
The issue has left people in South Dakota and Nebraska deeply divided. Most agree that alcohol abuse on the reservation is an entrenched problem, but they are unsure of the solution — and who is responsible.
The grim scene in Whiteclay has scarcely changed for decades. Particularly in the warmer months, Native Americans can be seen openly drinking beer in town, often passed out on the ground, disheveled and ill. Many who come to Whiteclay from the reservation spend the night sleeping on mattresses in vacant lots or fields.
Even under the chill of winter, people huddle outside the liquor stores, silver beer cans poking from coat pockets. The street, busy with traffic from customers, is littered with empty bottles and scraps of discarded clothing.
“It promotes so much misery, that little town,” said Andrea Two Bulls, 56, a Native American on Pine Ridge, who added that she hoped the state would revoke the licenses. “My brother used to go to Whiteclay all the time, and we’d have to go look for him. People sit and drink until they pass out. They just succumb.”
Over the decades, there have been frequent protests outside the stores. Lawsuits against the retailers and beer distributors have been filed. Boycotts of brewers that sell to the stores have begun with enthusiasm. All those efforts have sputtered, though, and little has changed...
Here's another faux racist incident, featuring another far-left nutjob, Rep. Maxine Waters of Los Angeles.
Apparently O'Reilly's apologized, but he shouldn't have had to. It's not racist to make a funny remark about someone's wig. And it is a "James Brown wig." He's absolutely right.
This is leftist thought control at its finest (or worst, depending on your perspective).
This book even debunks some of the false memes radical Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz spews, for example, that epidemic disease was secondary, if not tertiary (or so on), to genocide in the conquest of American Indians.
The formal two-year process governing Britain's departure from the European Union began in earnest Wednesday as a letter was delivered to the president of the European Council giving official notice that the country wishes to withdraw from the political and economic confederation.
The letter, signed by Prime Minister Theresa May and several pages long, will fundamentally shape the future of Britain and Europe for generations to come.
The letter was handed over by Sir Tim Barrow, Britain’s ambassador to the EU, and European Council President Donald Tusk released a brief statement on Twitter acknowledging receipt.
At a news conference in Brussels, Tusk appeared somber and said: "This is about damage control."
"Our goal is clear," he said. "To minimize the cost for the EU citizens, businesses and member states."
The move comes after the British public voted 52% to 48% last June, following a bruising referendum campaign, to leave the 28-member bloc after more than four decades.
During a statement to lawmakers in the House of Commons minutes after the letter was delivered, May said this was a "historic moment from which there can be no turning back."
She struck a conciliatory tone and pledged to “get the right deal for every single person in this country." She also implored all sections of society, regardless of how they voted, to use this moment to unite.
"We can, together, make a success of this moment and we can, together, build a stronger, fairer, better Britain — a Britain that our children and grandchildren are proud to call home," she said...
Porn stars like Naomi Woods and Kate England are never exactly fit like regular models. There's some element of shying away from the crowded clubs. Also, tremendous self-loathing. You only wished dad wished you were a boy. These ladies are trying their damnedest to fit in. Maybe cut back on the ass in air poses. You're going to ruin romantic vacations for tons of men whose wives started staring at them funny...
Did the song give you dรฉjร vu? It should: It starts out with the classic “Johnny B. Goode” guitar riff, bringing this latest release full circle.
Chuck is Chuck Berry’s first album in 38 years, so it comes highly anticipated, to say the least. It was initially announced last October, so fans only have a few more months to go before hearing some of Berry’s final works—which is sure to be a celebration of the late rocker’s life.
And his family agrees, sharing, “While our hearts are very heavy at this time, we know that Chuck had no greater wish than to see this album released to the world, and we know of no better way to celebrate and remember his 90 years of life than through his music.”
An audacious and powerful debut novel: a second American Civil War, a devastating plague, and one family caught deep in the middle—a story that asks what might happen if America were to turn its most devastating policies and deadly weapons upon itself.
Sarat Chestnut, born in Louisiana, is only six when the Second American Civil War breaks out in 2074. But even she knows that oil is outlawed, that Louisiana is half underwater, and that unmanned drones fill the sky. When her father is killed and her family is forced into Camp Patience for displaced persons, she begins to grow up shaped by her particular time and place. But not everyone at Camp Patience is who they claim to be. Eventually Sarat is befriended by a mysterious functionary, under whose influence she is turned into a deadly instrument of war. The decisions that she makes will have tremendous consequences not just for Sarat but for her family and her country, rippling through generations of strangers and kin alike.
The modest life, the life of home and family, living in security and comfort, would be the "mediocre" life for me. I'm almost at that place in my life. And I see it down the tunnel each day, as I get closer. (I've got to get my kids set up, to where they feel happy and comfortable, before my "mediocre" life comes closer into view.)
ObamaCare's a terrible law, but it is the law, and there are costs to repeal. Lots of voters gave it to congressional incumbents in the ear, from both sides.
Upon defeat, even Paul Ryan conceded that ObamaCare's the law of the land. The administration's now moving on to tax cuts, and let's hope and pray for more success.
Being old enough to remember how the Left vilified Charles Murray in the mid-1990s when he predicted the emergence of the white underclass, I am tempted to smile cynically at the current plight of Democrats. They imagined that “The Future Is Female,” only to discover that “The Future Is Redneck.” While it is too soon to guess the political consequences in the immediate future, Democrats are not likely to recover quickly if they choose to double-down on the anti-white, anti-male, anti-heterosexual rhetoric that led them to unexpected disaster in 2016.
Be sure to scroll through that Stoller piece though. Leftist really, and I mean really, hate white people.
I've got this item already loaded up in my shopping cart at Amazon. (ADDED: I'll purchase a new batch of books on the 1st, when my Amazon associates commissions come through, as well as my regular paycheck lol. Thanks for your support!)
He should get the lion's share of the blame, that's for sure. I do think Trump's a novice at the grubby game of Capital Hill logrolling and vote-trading, but Ryan should have been able to compensate. He might not have a hold on the politics of his own conference, which is sad.
London is the epicenter of globalization, a glut of money and creativity -- and the antithesis of Brexit parochialism. It is also the best city in the world.
Here's Mike, at Cold Fury, commenting on the Westminster jihad attack, "London calling":
And so I raise the question again: how much blood must be spilled before the Left is willing to confront its failure, its ignorance, its muttonheaded, moist-eyed belief in a total equality among men that in no way represents our harsher reality? How many more of us must die before they admit that their adolescent fantasy is nothing more than just that? How much wanton mass murder must we tolerate before they are willing to let go of their puerile daydreams and acknowledge the world as it exists, rather than clinging so desperately to an ideology that fundamentally misapprehends—brushes off, dismisses, actually—the darker aspect of human nature right out of the gate?
And the answer keeps coming back: MORE. More yet, more still. Not enough, not quite yet.
Which presents another, perhaps more vital and relevant question: how much Progressivist foolishness, their cowardice and juvenile self-indulgence, will WE tolerate before we take effective steps to end this patent madness? When will the sane majority finally decide that enough is truly enough and refuse to grant them and their inane, PC psychobabble serious consideration? When will we shove them aside and deal with a barbaric enemy in the rough and ruthless fashion that is our only hope of ever harnessing the primordial, atavistic belief system that is Islam?
When we will decide to defend our culture, our way of life—our actual, physical LIVES, ferchrissakes, individually and collectively—in the way merited? To stop being ashamed of our flaws, mourning our failures, apologizing for our missteps, and start protecting our precious civilization against a savage enemy who will neither cease nor rest at any point short of our complete annihilation?
I beg your indulgence here, folks, for I am about to say it yet again: In order to defeat our Muslim antagonists, we must first defeat the Left. There is no hope of achieving the one without first achieving the other; as long as Tranzi, multiculti, PC Leftism is still taken even remotely seriously by anything more than a handful of shunned loons skulking quietly about in a few urban enclaves, we will continue to endure the occasional appalling slaughter in our very heartland. We’re still a long, long way from it. In the end, we’re going to have to recognize that, no matter how many of them are massacred, there will always be a certain number who would rather die than fight back; who would rather embrace a failed pipe-dream of an ideology than ever admit error, even in the face of the most direct and dire evidence of said failure imaginable...
Sometimes I need a little breather from the unrelenting anti-Americanism of the leftist approaches, especially in Dunbar-Ortiz, who's a revolutionary Marxist.
Bordewich, on the other hand, offers the most balanced interpretation of the American Indian experience I've read, at least among the more recent publications in the genre. (When we go back to some of the older historians, like Robert Utley, they too offer balanced and pleasurable interpretations. It's just that Dunbar-Ortiz, while recommended, is pretty intense --- indeed, I'll have some longer comments on her book when I've finished it.)
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. Thank you for shopping through my links.