[BUMPED UP once again: Please scroll down for today’s new posts—there are a lot of them.]
I’d be deeply grateful if you decide to click on that Paypal “Donate” button on the right sidebar (or down below, if you’re on a cellphone) and contribute, whether it be a penny or quite a few dollars. Thanks to all!!!
It’s no surprise that the NY Times has obtained Donald Trump’s tax records, no doubt from some brave member of the The Resistance.
At least, the paper claims to have obtained them, and I’m going to assume that is the case.
Here’s the article, and a few excerpts:
But The Times’s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day.
Much of this money came to Mr. Trump because he helped his parents dodge taxes. He and his siblings set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents, records and interviews show. Records indicate that Mr. Trump helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more. He also helped formulate a strategy to undervalue his parents’ real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, sharply reducing the tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings.
These maneuvers met with little resistance from the Internal Revenue Service, The Times found.
Trying to interpret through the fog of the usual Times propaganda, I come up with this: Trump and the entire family set up a tax shelter of some sort, on the advice of attorneys and/or accountants. This was way back when the tax rate was much much higher, and complicated tax shelters were standard for anyone with a large amount of money.
And the fact that the IRS didn’t offer any “resistance” (interesting and revealing word, no?) means what? My guess is that the IRS always looked at the Trump tax return pretty carefully, as they do the returns of most mega-rich people with complex holdings and earnings, and the IRS decided the shelter was legal.
One of Trump’s attorneys has issued this statement:
The New York Times’s allegations of fraud and tax evasion are 100 percent false, and highly defamatory,” Mr. Harder said. “There was no fraud or tax evasion by anyone. The facts upon which The Times bases its false allegations are extremely inaccurate.”
Mr. Harder sought to distance Mr. Trump from the tax strategies used by his family, saying the president had delegated those tasks to relatives and tax professionals. “President Trump had virtually no involvement whatsoever with these matters,” he said. “The affairs were handled by other Trump family members who were not experts themselves and therefore relied entirely upon the aforementioned licensed professionals to ensure full compliance with the law.”
According to this article, the letter concludes with this sentence:
Should the Times state or imply that President Trump participated in fraud, tax evasion, or any other crime, it will be exposing itself to substantial liability and damages for defamation.
The Times is feeding its readers what they want. And it feels fully protected by Sullivan, which gave news outlets license to say virtually anything they want about a public figure they hate.
I’m not going to write much about Ford’s ex-boyfriend’s letter—the one that indicates she’s been telling many lies during her testimony—for the simple reasons that (a) others have done so quite thoroughly, and (b) I’m not sure that he’s telling the truth, although I hope we can find out soon. I also refer you to this article about her front doors. Make of it what you will.
But Rachel Mitchell’s report had already shed a lot of light on the inconsistencies, evasions, and in some cases lies (that flying to the hearing was not possible for her, due to her phobia about flying) that Ford has already told. These problems are important and material, not tangential. They cast doubt on her basic story and they indicate manipulative motives (quite possibly of the politically oriented variety) as well.
Initially I felt that Ford at least thought she was telling the truth, and that she probably had a distorted and/or “recovered” memory. Now quite a bit of doubt has been shed on that theory, as well, to be replaced by the very real possibility that she made it up out of the whole cloth, or certainly knew that Kavanaugh was not involved in whatever incident she may have experienced.
Another thing I haven’t seen too much discussion about is that Mark Judge had already provided her with all the information she needed to formulate an untrue accusation, if that’s in fact what she did. He went to school with Kavanaugh, and wrote a book about his (Judge’s) own drinking problems as a young man. I haven’t read the book, but it’s in the public domain and Ford had full access to it. Did she ever read it? That in itself would not be proof of anything much, because she might have read it with the completely innocent motive of reading a memoir by someone who grew up around the same time as she did and within the same milieu, and whom she knew at least slightly.
However, I’d love to know if she read it and when she read it. Did she read it at all? If so, was it not too long before she told her therapist about the Kavanaugh incident in 2012? Was it between then and the letter she wrote to her House representative that started this whole nasty mess?
But the real question is—did he throw ice in anybody’s face as an “excuse to brawl”?
By the way, Obama graduated from high school four years before Kavanaugh, so he’s roughly the same age although a bit older. A similar generation, really. As Obama present them, his high school years were a lot more “lost” than Kavanaugh’s.
Not that I care whether Obama drank or did drugs in high school. What I’m interested in is Democratic hypocrisy.
[ADDENDUM: I’m going to add something I mentioned in one of my comments to this post. It’s relevant to the subject at hand, but it’s from this post I wrote in 2006, about the Communist erasure of history by erasing photos of people who have become unpersons.
Excerpt:
So why was Clementis erased from the photo, if his presence was so easy to remember? For future generations, of course, it might be possible to eliminate even the appearance of any jarring notes in the supposedly harmonious symphony of the history of Czech Communism, and so some of the erasure was undoubtedly for them.
But for those contemporaneous with the incident, who knew better, those rewriting history must not have cared how transparent their actions were, because their real aim was probably to teach a different object lesson. Perhaps what they were really saying was not “Clementis the traitor didn’t exist” but rather, “Take heed: if you become a traitor like Clementis, you’ll become an unperson, too.” Perhaps they meant the erasure to be transparent, to demonstrate quite graphically how they had the power to crush a person–not just the body, but the history of the life, as well.
In so doing, they were also relaying another message. They were exhorting the Czech populace to practice what Orwell called “doublethink,” saying, in effect, “Even though we know that you know full well that Clementis existed and was even a member in good standing of the Party at one point, we are also saying that you must will yourself to unremember. If we say he didn’t exist, then he didn’t exist. Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes (and your lying memory)?”
Orwell wrote that “doublethink” requires a person:
“…to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.”
The havoc that such mind games wrought on the people of Czechoslovakia is a major theme of Kundera’s work. The effect was pervasive, and the tension reached into almost every endeavor, including love and sex–subjects that occur with great frequency in Kundera’s work, as well.]
Why?
THEY WERE DRINKING!!!!!
Don’t believe me? Here you go:
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg admits to sharing some wine with her colleagues and not being “100 percent sober” for President Obama’s State of the Union address in January.
During Obama’s speech, which lasted just under an hour, many viewers on social media pointed out that the 81-year-old liberal justice appeared to be snoozing.
“The audience for the most part is awake, because they’re bobbing up and down, and we sit there, stone-faced, sober judges. But we’re not, at least I wasn’t, 100 percent sober,” Ginsburg said during a talk at The George Washington University on Thursday night, according to a report by The Blaze.
“Because before we went to the State of the Union, Justice Kennedy brought in … it was an Opus something or other, very fine California wine, and I vowed this year, just sparkling water, stay away from the wine, but in the end, the dinner was so delicious, it needed wine,” Ginsburg said.
Fortunately Kennedy just retired, saving us the trouble of impeaching him.
The pattern is clear.
Georgetown University refuses to sanction Professor Christine Fair for one of the most egregiously vile and violent comments I’ve ever seen on Twitter, whereas Catholic University comes down hard on Dean Rainford for merely stating a rather mild truth critical of already-debunked “accuser” Julie Swetnick.
If I had to choose only one of the two disparate responses, I’d chose Georgetown’s, which at least comes down on the side of liberty, and then let the market decide if students wish to attend Prof. Fair’s (a more inappropriate name was never seen) classes.
Catholic University’s response, on the other hand is craven and anti-liberty. And it’s not a one-off. A similar event has occurred at USC, where tenured professor James Moore is in trouble for saying that 2+2=4.
Yes, for merely stating an obvious, non-abusive, inoffensive (except to SJWs) truth about accusers (otherwise known as “survivors” and “victims,” because even false accusers are to be regarded as victims, right?):
Nearly 100 students at the University of Southern California attended a rally at noon on Monday demanding a tenured professor be fired after he sent a reply-all email last Thursday to the student body noting that “accusers sometimes lie.”
“If the day comes you are accused of some crime or tort of which you are not guilty, and you find your peers automatically believing your accuser, I expect you find yourself a stronger proponent of due process than you are now,” emailed Professor James Moore.
The email — in response to a reply-all email that urged students to “Believe Survivors” on the day of Christine Ford’s testimony — triggered what one school admin said was “hundreds” of emails from concerned students and alumni since Thursday.
USC students Audrey Mechling and Joelle Montier then organized a Facebook rally against the engineering professor, entitled “Times Up for James Moore.”
These anti-free-speech zealots can rally all they want; that’s free speech, too. It’s intensely depressing that they can draw any sort of crowd at all, but that’s what decades of leftist control of schools has wrought. The bigger problem is the response of USC’s administration in the person of Dean Jack Knott, the dancing bear du jour:
“What [Professor Moore] sent was extremely inappropriate, hurtful, insensitive. We are going to try to do everything we can to try to create a better school, to educate the faculty,” said Dean Knott to the crowd.
He then announced that USC would take action.
“This is going to be a multi-pronged effort. We are going to have a faculty meeting later this week around implicit bias, sensitivity towards [sexual assault]….” he said.
Isn’t that special, Dean Knott. Maybe the crocodile will eat you last. Send whatever portion of your faculty still retaining the values of logic and truth to the re-education camps for the proper training in right-thinking. And by the way, what Professor Moore said was actually extremely appropriate. If it hurt some sensitive SJW creatures who would like to do away with the protections Western civilization has struggled to put in place against false accusations, well then, tough.
Moore’s apology was tepid, and his defense of himself robust:
It is never my intention to hurt anyone. My intention is to protect more students than we currently do from being punished for acts of misconduct they have not committed. Any of us might stand accused of any number of misdeeds, and each of us at that point will want to be treated fairly under due process.
In light of all of this, consider the widespread criticism President Trump has gotten for mocking Christine Ford in a speech he gave recently. I happen to think he should have refrained for strategic reasons because (as the article demonstrates) the wavering senators who are gumming up the works didn’t like it. What he said may have essentially been true, but I think it didn’t help achieve the goal at all, and gave Ford’s defenders and Kavanaugh’s enemies grist for their mill. It was also unnecessary; Ford’s veracity problems and memory lapses have already been pointed out, and he was preaching to the choir.
On the other hand, I’ve been wrong many times about Trump’s controversial tweets and statements and their effect. I think he was trying to highlight the inconsistencies in Ford’s story in a way that really sinks in for people. He knew that his statements would get wide coverage, of course, much wider than if he’d said the same thing in a more restrained way.
Who knows? I suspect that on the whole what Trump did was a bad idea. But I also think that Ford’s lack of truthfulness is coming more and more into focus, and it should be fair game for criticism. Is she a “victim” of something? Who knows? But the lies of accusers are not to be afforded some special kid glove treatment merely because the accusers choose to couch those lies in accusations of sexual abuse, and/or because they are women. And yet that’s the hill most of our universities have chosen to die on.
…no matter how illogical or implausible their stories.
Earlier today, I wrote about how a disgusting and violent, racist and sexist tweet of Professor Christine Fair got no flak from her employer, Georgetown University. Meanwhile, Dean Will Rainford received some harsh treatment from his employer, Catholic University, for the following tweet:
“Swetnick is 55 y/o. Kavanaugh is 52 y/o. Since when do senior girls hang with freshmen boys? If it happened when Kavanaugh was a senior, Swetnick was an adult drinking with&by her admission, having sex with underage boys. In another universe, he would be victim & she the perp!”
For this rather mild criticism of the abominable Swetnick, Rainford was suspended from his job for the remainder of the semester and apparently forced to apologize. I say “forced” because it’s hard to believe that he issued this statement voluntarily. I suspect he did it to avoid becoming a pariah (and perhaps to have his very own false allegations of sexual assault lodged against him). This is sickening, worthy of the Soviet Union:
Rainford issued an apology Thursday, saying that his tweet “unfortunately degraded” Swetnick.
“My tweet suggested that she was not a victim of sexual assault,” he wrote. “I offer no excuse. It was impulsive and thoughtless and I apologize.”
The excuse is as plain as the nose on anyone’s face: Swetnick is lying, and even those who originally believed her are well aware at this point that it’s all lies on her part. Her story has zero credibility on its face, she has recanted most of it, and her record gives her zero credibility in general (see this, this, and this). .
But this man is paying the price for even questioning her story. The university’s president John Garvey has called Rainford’s tweet “unacceptable” and says it “demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to the victim.”
What “victim” are you talking about? Swetnick is a victimizer, not a victim.
Garvey added:
“While it was appropriate for [Rainford] to apologize and to delete his Twitter and Facebook accounts, this does not excuse the serious lack of judgment and insensitivity of his comments.”
I wonder what Garvey would have had to say if he’d been the president of Georgetown. Would he have called Christine Fair’s comments “insensitive” and say they showed a “serious lack of judgment”? I doubt it.
Just to refresh your memory, here’s what Fair wrote:
Look at thus chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist's arrogated entitlement.
All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes. https://t.co/tT7Igu157y— (((Christine Fair))) (@CChristineFair) September 29, 2018
Georgetown seemed to take it right in stride.
[ADDENDUM: I want to call your attention to this. It’s part of a post I wrote about a year ago:
As Allan Bloom wrote in the late 80s, describing events that had occurred at Cornell during the late 60s:
“[S]tudents discovered that pompous teachers who catechized them about academic freedom could, with a little shove, be made into dancing bears.”
“Teachers” includes “administrators,” of course. One difference, though, between the 60s and now, is that I don’t think there’s quite as much talk by professors about academic freedom.
Except, apparently, at Georgetown—if you’re a leftist calling for the murder and castration of white males.]
Here’s my question: why should anyone on earth care if college student Brett Kavanaugh once got into a bar fight that resulted in no charges—or once precipitated a bar fight by reacting to an insult by throwing the contents of a drink in someone’s face—about 35 years ago, and has done nothing of the sort since?
Why should we care? We shouldn’t. It is irrelevant. It is normal guy behavior. It is nothing.
What’s more, those who are trying desperately to make it out to be something don’t even believe that themselves. They are doing this solely—and I mean solely—for political reasons, and that fact is nakedly transparent.
No other SCOTUS nominee has ever been asked about anything of the sort, and if asked no one has cared about the answer. The FBI has looked with great thoroughness, many times over, into any police records or reports about Kavanaugh and found them to be a big nothingburger.
This is all a huge charade by the left to gain political power. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad and dangerous.
But it’s apparently a useful charade. One of its purposes is to provide cover for any senators who want to vote “no” on Kavanaugh. Another is to de-legitimize Kavanaugh forever in the eyes of half the public if he does become a SCOTUS justice. Still another is to serve notice on any future Trump nominees that they better not have a history of any altercations or transgressions in their lives back to the cradle, because the left will be uncovering anything other than Dalai Lama behavior. What’s more, if the transgressions don’t exist, the left will invent them.
Canada’s Quebec seems to be joining the many places around the western world that are swinging towards the right in response to the left’s immigration policies:
The business-friendly CAQ is expected to win a majority of seats in Canada’s second most populous province, according to early results from Elections Quebec and network projections…
The CAQ win would follow a shift to the right in Ontario, where Premier Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative government swept to power in June, ending 15 years of Liberal rule in Canada’s most populous province.
Quebec’s Liberals held power for 13 out of the last 15 years.
Legault campaigned on a controversial plan to take in 10,000 fewer immigrants a year and to expel new residents who fail tests on French and Quebec values within three years.
“Quebecers have clearly indicated their desire for change,” Liberal leader and former Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard said in a concession speech, adding that he would reflect on his political future.
The left thought it would be immune to any backlash from its immigration policies, just as they did in this country. So far they are not. Of course, in this country, we are getting an inkling of just how far they are willing to go to take back power. I hope for Canada’s sake it’s not the same there.
Rachel Mitchell has issued a report that criticizes Ford’s testimony, but what does Mitchell know? She’s only an expert. And she deals with facts and logic, and we don’t want no steeenking facts here.
Here’s the complete report and a discussion of it. But how many people will pay attention, compared to the number watching the hearing, or watching sound bites from it, or joining the feeding frenzy on Twitter? The people who automatically believed Ford because of her vulnerable affect are functioning through emotion rather than logic, and “you cannot reason people out of something they were not reasoned into.”
We don’t know if Ford is telling the truth in identifying her perpetrator, or indeed whether she was attacked at all, or whether even she thinks she’s telling the truth. We do know that her story has changed over and over in important and material facts, contains perplexing holes, was a long time coming, and could easily be politically motivted. The fact that she can tell a convincing story, and look traumatized while doing it, does not tell us whether that story is the truth. Rachel Mitchell makes it clear that the story could not hold up in a court of law even in a civil suit, and does not even hold up as a credible story.
Those who believe Ford’s story is true have ignored or rationalized the obvious inconsistencies, explaining them away by saying that of course trauma clouds memory. But sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t, and at any rate that cannot do away with the need for evidence. When the supposed “survivor’s” narrative is the only evidence there is, if she cannot tell the story’s relevant facts the case is suspect on its face and can never be used as evidence of an offense. Her friends and family are welcome to believe her, but no one else should rely on her story as the truth.
Those who believe Ford’s story also are ignoring or rationalizing the actual lies she has told (and/or let slide when her attorneys told the lies about her), such as the one concerning her fear of flying (there are apparently others, such as her explanation for the second door on her house). And that lie about flying was not an inconsequential, trangential, “white” lie, either. Although that lie was not about the sexual assault allegations themselves, it was a nakedly manipulative lie told in order to affect the committee’s schedule and alter congressional politics, as well as public opinion (“oh, the poor woman, traumatized by Brett Kavanaugh!”). It was a successful lie, too, at least at the time, even though it could be easily refuted by evidence. But the evidence came too late to undo the damage the lie had already done, and that almost certainly was part of the calculation of the telling of the lie.
Ford’s defenders say something like this in order to explain it all away: “Just because she flies a lot doesn’t mean she’s not afraid of flying!” That is certainly true, but completely and utterly irrelevant. Ford’s lawyers were not citing her fear of flying to discuss her mental state in the abstract, they were citing it to justify a delay in the hearing because she could not fly as a result of that fear of flying. That argument is torn to shreds by the simple fact that she flies often despite whatever fear she has, and therefore of course could have flown to any hearing in a timely fashion. And she did fly to the hearing, after having it postponed for this contrived reason.
That is simple logic, but simple logic is not something Ford’s defenders seem to want to apply or even be able to apply. And no, they’re not all women. Plenty of them are men.
And they’re not all stupid or globally illogical, although some are. For many it’s a case of 2 + 2= 5, because the Party wills it.
And I might add: why is she still allowed on Twitter?
Those questions are rhetorical—I know the answer, which is that her vicious hatred is directed towards the correct people.
Look at thus chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist's arrogated entitlement.
All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes. https://t.co/tT7Igu157y— (((Christine Fair))) (@CChristineFair) September 29, 2018
Here’s the author’s Wiki entry. And here’s Georgetown’s response to her tweet:
“The views of faculty members expressed in their private capacities are their own and not the views of the University. Our policy does not prohibit speech based on the person presenting ideas or the content of those ideas, even when those ideas may be difficult, controversial or objectionable. While faculty members may exercise freedom of speech, we expect that their classrooms and interaction with students be free of bias and geared toward thoughtful, respectful dialogue.”
That is a ludicrous response on Georgetown’s part. This is not a situation in which it is even remotely possible that someone expressing such thoughts in a public forum will be able to “interact” with students in a manner that is “free of bias and geared toward thoughtful, respectful dialogue.”
Fair’s student evaluations from before this ever happened indicate that she already wasn’t interacting with students in such a way.
Fair is also the person who was responsible for Richard Spencer being thrown out of his health club, as well as several other disputes that got some press. According to Fair’s Wiki entry:
In January 2017, Fair was involved in a Twitter dispute with Asra Q. Nomani [Nomani is another professor; you can find her Wiki entry here]. In response to Nomani’s tweet that as a Muslim, she voted for President Trump, Fair tweeted that she had “written [Nomani] off as a human being” and that Nomani had “pimped herself out to all media outlets.” Nomani responded by filing a complaint with Georgetown University, Fair’s employer, alleging discrimination and harassment.
In May 2017, Fair began an altercation with white nationalist Richard B. Spencer at a gym in Alexandria, Virginia. While the two were working out, Fair approached Spencer and accused him of being a Nazi, along with a number of other accusations, leading a third gym patron to intervene on behalf of him. This incident resulted in Spencer’s membership being terminated by the manager of the gym.
In January 2018, Fair was involved in an incident at Frankfurt Airport. When her bag was flagged for possibly containing explosives, it was searched and German Federal Police instructed Fair that she would have to dispose of a liquid deodorant or transfer it to her checked bag. German police stated that Fair was uncooperative, as she accused them of sexism, of being Nazis and thugs, and directed expletives at them. Fair was charged with slander under Germany’s defamation law. She subsequently published an article on HuffPost partially rejecting the police account of the incident.
Interesting that Fair’s favorite term of opprobrium seems to be to call people Nazis. If you want to see the tenor of her dispute with Nomani (in which the Nazi-name-calling was also quite prominent on Fair’s part) please see this. And yet Fair retained her position at Georgetown after that.
Now, Richard Spencer (not to be confused with Robert Spencer) is in fact a white supremacist (a discussion of Richard Spencer occurs in a comment thread beginning here). If not an actual Nazi, he seems rather Nazi-esque. But he should be allowed to work out at a gym, where he basically minds his own business and lives his life.
But Christine Fair, the woman who doesn’t limit the word “Nazi” to the likes of Richard Spencer but who uses it for just about everyone who doesn’t share her extreme political point of view, and who has called for the murder and castration of a group based on their sex and race, exhibits that true Nazi spirit herself.
I’m not aware of Georgetown’s specific rules regarding when a tenured professor can be dismissed, but this article indicates that “moral turpitude” is one reason that generally suffices. Moral turpitude is defined this way:
The concept of “moral turpitude” might escape precise definition, but it has been described as an “act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.”
The rest of the article has to do with crimes involving moral turpitude. Obviously, nothing Fair has written is a crime, although it states a desire to commit the crime of mass murder and then defacement of bodies, based on sex and race. In this country we don’t criminalize speech, except in very rare instances that her tweets would not fall into. But in terms of tenure, wouldn’t those tweets constitute moral turpitude by almost any definition? It’s a judgment call, of course, but I cannot imagine that if the sex and/or race of her targets were different—say, if she was calling for the murder and mutilation of blacks and/or women—that she would be retaining her job.
[NOTE: One solution might be for students to simply boycott her class. But it wouldn’t surprise me at this point if her notoriety attracts a lot of students rather than repels them. And it might be that her class is required for some degree program, which might make it difficult for students in that major to avoid it.
Another possibility is for Georgetown alums to threaten to stop giving money to the school.
More here about some of Fair’s previous tweets.]
[Hat tip: commenter “Artfldgr.]
[ADDENDUM: A little more searching has turned up an article Fair wrote that sheds some light on the origins of her towering rage. Her family apparently wasn’t just dysfunctional, it was horrifically so. She admits that she was highly damaged by it and lives in a constant state of rage. Not an excuse for her own behavior as a 50-year-old woman, but a terribly sad story.]
[ADDENDUM II: Fair’s Twitter account has been suspended.]
The Bing bot attack seems to have subsided—for now, anyway. But that’s certainly not a result of anything my host did to fix it, which was basically nothing.
But now there’s an intermittent problem with comment autofill, in which every now and then a previous commenter’s data is being autofilled on someone else’s computer. This happened once before a year or two ago, and involves a cache problem at the host’s server. It went away fairly quickly the last time. But in the meantime I’m suggesting that people put in false email addresses if they’re concerned about this.
I am also about to migrate to a new host because I am very dissatisfied with my present host. However, the migration will take a few days. I apologize for the problem and the inconvenience, but I trust it will be better soon and I hope that with a new host these problems will not recur.
neo.