BREAKING: Putting our rational skills on display!


Twilight of the animals:
We rational animals are always quick to put our skills on display.

So it was in the case of Thursday's Senate hearing, which may have been scripted by Alice's queen:

"Hearing first, investigation later," we rationals said. And not only that:

"Let's put a time limit on our probe! We wouldn't want to take a chance on possibly learning too much!"

So we modern Americans play, in the twilight of our culture. Also this:

Within the framework of our rationality, Thursday, July 1, 1982 can't be scored as a weekend night. More specifically, it wouldn't have been the start of that year's July 4 weekend!

The Washington Post accepts this framework in this morning's otherwise instructive news report—a news report which makes us wonder if Kavanaugh's voluntarily provided calendars may turn out to be the equivalent of Nixon's undestroyed tapes. Featured in the Post's photograph is a familiar type of event—a liberal leader, Senator Whitehouse, arriving at the scene of the crime exactly one day late.

We mention Whitehouse for a reason. It's easy for us liberals to spot the dissembling in Kavanaugh's testimony—and it must be said that, for better or worse, Kavanaugh is an astoundingly unskilled dissembler.

The fact that he did a lot of dissembling doesn't necessarily mean that he assaulted Christine Blasey when she was 15. That said, his endless, amazingly unskilled dissembling cohabited on Thursday with a familiar phenomenon—the amazing incompetence put on display by our own tribal leaders.

First example:

Why did Senator Feinstein, and all the others, wait so long to deny the claim that she and/or her staff leaked the contents of Blasey Ford's confidential letter, thereby bringing Blasey Ford into the public eye?

Why in the world did they wait so long? We have no idea, but it amounted to (very familiar) intellectual misfeasance when the Democrats allowed this claim against Feinstein and her staff to go unchallenged so long.

If you want to inform yourselves farther, here is The Intercept's Ryan Grim saying that neither Feinstein nor her staff leaked the information in question to the Intercept, the site which produced the first public report concerning Blasey Ford's allegation.

Conservatives watching Thursday's hearing saw Feinstein fingered again and again before she finally got around to objecting. In these ways, our tribe's astounding incompetence contributes to false belief on the part of the other tribe's members.

Second example:

Anyone watching Thursday's hearing saw Kavanaugh claim, again and again, that everyone named by Blasey Ford had "refuted" her claim about the party or gathering in question. This was said again and again and again and again. As Kavanaugh kept repeating this claim, our tribal leaders performed like the famous "potted plants" of Watergate-era fame.

Our team has performed in such pitiful ways for at least three decades. It has been impossible to call liberal attention to this fact. In large part, this explains the way we got to the place where it falls to Donald J. Trump to make Supreme Court nominations.

In short, we created this amazingly stupid and dangerous world. The twilight of the rational animals achieved its full flower through us.

How else have we gotten to this place? If you watched Tucker Carlson on Monday night, you saw this appalling performance during his opening monologue:
CARLSON (9/25/18): There's a flip side to the new system. Because the accused are guilty by definition, the accuser suddenly have no responsibility to make credible claims. And we're seeing that principle in action too.

We covered the story all last week. Five nights in a row we said that we are giving Christine Ford every benefit of every doubt, and we did that. But let's be honest now. Not many of her claims would hold up in an actual court, the one governed by the justice system we thought we had until about 10 days ago...

When did this alleged assault take place? Ford can't say. When did it happen? She doesn't know. Where are the witnesses to this? Well, there aren't any. The few people Ford has named deny it happened. When was this first reported to authorities? Well, it never really was.

The story came out in stages. It was a recovered memory, apparently summoned by a psychotherapist 30 years after the fact. And even then, it was another six years before Ford named Brett Kavanaugh specifically, at exactly the point he was being nominated for the Supreme Court.

That's not our analysis of the case. It's the position of Ford's lawyers, nearly all of whom double as Democratic Party activists and operatives and some of whom defended Bill Clinton from far graver sexual assault claims when he was accused.

That doesn't mean Ford is lying. But it does raise legitimate questions so does a lot of her behavior.
Carlson made the same false claim about the people Blasey Ford named.

"The few people Ford has named deny [the alleged assault] happened?" In fact, one of the people Blasey Ford named has said she believes it did happen. (Two of the people she named are said to have perpetrated the assault.)

That was penny-=ante stuff; we also note the apparent false claim about when Blasey Ford first named Kavanaugh as her alleged assailant. From there, Carlson went on to other false claims, including the claim we've highlighted.


When have Blasey Ford's lawyers ever said that her allegation is the result of a "recovered memory?" We find evidence of no such assertion, nor did Carlson specify any such statement.

That said, he was soon repeating this claim, several times, in the face of a less than fully competent liberal guest. As he did, he said that such "recovered memories" are less reliable than the regular kind.

In a familiar pattern on Carlson's show, his eager but overmatched liberal guest failed to challenge his bogus assertion. Several million viewers thus became even more misinformed, in a familiar old way.

At least sine the rise of Rush Limbaugh in the 1980s, such acts of disinformation have ruled American discourse. When these acts have come from the right, the liberal world has typically slumbered and slept and dozed and scratched and dreamily chosen to burble. Either that or we've gone on Carlson's show, where we typically offer the silence of the sacrificial lambs.

Not all the acts of disinformation have come from the right. During the Clinton/Gore/Clinton years, many of these acts came from the upper-end mainstream press, the source of employment to the many people who pose as our tribe's liberal leaders.

Our leaders have tended to stare into space as dis- and misinformation have come to rule our discourse. On the rare occasions where we manage to show up at all, we tend to show up one day late, as Whitehouse did yesterday morning.

People like Carlson can say what they please. Beyond that, attacks on the Clintons—including misogynistic attacks on Hillary Clinton—will run all over the New York Times without a word from our leaders.

(Those misogynistic attacks ran on cable for decades. Our liberal leaders clamored to get on the programs in question, so they could play right along.)

We reaped the whirlwind of our endless silence when Donald J. Trump drew an inside straight and squeezed his way into the White House. So it has gone in the never-ending twilight of the rationals.

There's no way to cover the full extent of this moral and intellectual breakdown, but our own tribe's relentless failure is a very large part of this mess. We're in this twilight up to our necks—this twilight of the rational animals, which could sweep us all away.

Is Blasey Ford's allegation true? We can't tell you that. But on Thursday morning, she rose to perform her citizen's duty. Over here in our self-impressed liberal tents, we rise to that level quite rarely.

Hearing first, investigation later! And don't let the probe run too long!

In fairness: After performing his acts of disinformation, Carlson typically spends some time airing tape of low-grade, inane behavior by our own liberal players.

These parts of Carlson's show are often all too instructive. If you ever watch his show, we're afraid you might see what we mean.

In these ways, the other tribe learns that we liberals can't be trusted. All too often, viewers see Carlson making a decent point.


  1. "Why did Senator Feinstein, and all the others, wait so long to deny the claim that she and/or her staff leaked the contents of Blasey Ford's confidential letter, thereby bringing Blasey Ford into the public eye?"

    Why did you wait so long to deny beating your wife? What a stupid question Somerby asks here! Conservatives used any and all accusations against Democrats to advance their interests. It doesn't matter how many times Feinstein might have already explained what happened, Republicans are going to hear lies and distortions over and over from their own side. Is Somerby really not aware of this? Does Feinstein really have to proactively deny any and all accusations that might be made against her? Don't be an ass, Somerby.

  2. "Anyone watching Thursday's hearing saw Kavanaugh claim, again and again, that everyone named by Blasey Ford had "refuted" her claim about the party or gathering in question. This was said again and again and again and again. As Kavanaugh kept repeating this claim, our tribal leaders performed like the famous "potted plants" of Watergate-era fame."

    Here Somerby demonstrates his ignorance of the process by which hearings are conducted. Does he imagine that any Democrat on that panel could have interrupted Kavanaugh or spoken out at any time? Democrats got 5 minutes to speak. They are "out of order" if they try to speak at other times other than for points of procedure. They didn't get to refute anything said. They used their 5 minutes to make the points that they had determined ahead of time would advance the purposes of the hearing. That did not include any back-and-forth rebuttals of the endless stream of garbage spoken by Kavanaugh and the Republicans. This was not a debate. And even debates have procedures that do not permit interruptions to disagree in real time.

    This idea that Democrats are lame because they follow the rules of a congressional hearing is just plain wrong. Why does Somerby make such a complaint? Why is he so vested in showing that the Democrats are always ineffective? Kavanaugh hung himself and the untruths he spoke were obvious to anyone but the most oblivious conservatives. What would be the point of Democrats interrupting and being combative and thus proving to conservatives that they had bad intentions toward the nominee and were unable to give him a fair hearing? That would have been shooting ourselves in the foot -- but that is what Somerby apparently thinks the Dems should have been doing.

    What is wrong with Somerby?

    1. 1:21

      “Not all the acts of disinformation have come from the right. During the Clinton/Gore/Clinton years, many of these acts came from the upper-end mainstream press, the source of employment to the many people who pose as our tribe's liberal leaders.”

      This statement is the most instructive I’ve seen to address the grievances of the Elba’s in the comment section, who bemoan Bob’s use of the term “liberal” to describe our broken msm, and take it as a personal slight.

      “Why is he so vested in showing that the Democrats are always ineffective?”

      Maybe because he’s right, Elba. Democrats, like my own DINO Joe Donnelly bless his heart, are feckless and adrift. The only thing animating their shambling corpse is corporate money, and the long-dead brand that progressives like Ocasio-Cortez must court to even be in the running. She beat a Democrat, and good for her. Maybe such wins will bring them back to their somewhat recent standing as a party for the people, but I’m not holding my breath, as long as the Feinstein’s of the party hold power.

      At this point, even after the loathsome Republicans were able to install Gorsuch, a Kavanaugh confirmation will only be the fault of “liberals.”

      Here’s a nice tune.


    2. Leroy, why do you hang around calling people names at a liberal blog, when you are clearly a conservative and out of step with the others here? Go visit conservative treehouse. They will welcome your digs there.

    3. I'm already in a treehouse, left to me by Bartcop.

      Define Conservative.


    4. Not interested, Leroy. Play games somewhere else.

    5. @Leroy:

      You said "long-dead brand that progressives like Ocasio-Cortez must court"

      I'm truly curious to know what specific examples of this mythical "long dead" brand you can name.

      Also, I don't know what your politics actually are, but you are maligning millions of people who consider themselves liberal (without the sarcasm quotes) and who feel that the Democrats represent their interests.

      And I'm sure the Republicans are quite happy to know that you and Bob Somerby absolve them of any responsibility for their own actions--it's only "liberals" who are to blame for any and everything.

      I'm also curious to know what you think of Somerby's defense of Clinton and Gore, both mainstream Democrats. Gore picked Lieberman by the way. Hardly the dream VP of progressives.

    6. 9:54

      Somerby’s defense of Clinton and Gore came by the way in which they were treated by the press, and I don’t think there’s anything to indicate otherwise. Lyons and Conason had very similar observations, in fact, had books published on the subject.

      Somerby defended them on that issue alone. He didn’t say boo about their politics. If he said anything positive about Lieberman, I’m not aware of it. Lieberman’s an execrable creature, and Gore made a bad choice in my opinion. But that’s how the Democrats roll, you see, and that’s entirely my point. Though Gore may have been a great President, even with that pos Lieberman, given the almost ceremonial office for which he was chosen, Gore may have been great. But Gore was routinely cast as a liar in our major press orgs. That is what cost him the election, in Somerby’s view, and the evidence makes that thesis hard to refute.

      What is a liberal? What is a conservative? There are dictionary definitions, but they seem often to overlap. For example, liberals and conservatives, as they were traditionally known, would agree that environmental protection should be embraced. Is that the case now? I don’t think so.

      In my view, it’s now a race between socialist progressives on the one side, and the two major party’s on the other.

      If I’m wrong, won’t be the first time.


    7. "...a Kavanaugh confirmation will only be the fault of “liberals."

      Because they didn't make the South the North's parking lot after the Civil War?

  3. "That said, he was soon repeating this claim, several times, in the face of a less than fully competent liberal guest. "

    Why would Tucker Carlson and Fox News invite a competent liberal guest on their shows? If the liberal guest were competent, they would be silenced in some way (shouted down, have their mic cut, time's up etc.).

  4. "There's no way to cover the full extent of this moral and intellectual breakdown, but our own tribe's relentless failure is a very large part of this mess. "

    Somerby seems to blame the vote first, investigate second approach on liberals but how exactly are liberals supposed to stop what the Republicans did? It wasn't Democrats voting for any of this stuff. Coons (a Democrat) did a good job of convincing Flake to finally show some spine, as did the two women who cornered him in an elevator (presumably liberal but not necessarily). Liberals have been demonstrating and calling congressmen (including Republicans) and running ads in their districts. What more should they do? What magic does Somerby have to propose for opposing what the Republicans have been doing, beyond what was done?

    I am so sick of Somerby calling liberals names and placing blame on us for the extremely ugly stuff done by the other side. All this "we" and "us" is untrue if Somerby thinks he is a member of our liberal tribe. He is clearly working for the other side now, and has been for quite some time. He needs to cut the crap.

    1. Urban Dictionary: concern troll: In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with "concerns". The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you're an ally. ...

  5. ""Hearing first, investigation later," we rationals said."

    Yeah, right. In your lib-zombie world any 4-decades-delayed zombie accusation must be immediately investigated by las federales - the faithful lib-zombie establishment troops.

    Unless it's one of your zombie demigods who's been accused. In which case, the accusation itself is an outrage, of course.

    Nice going, Bob...

    1. "any 4-decades-delayed zombie accusation must be immediately investigated"

      Just the felonies committed by judicial appointees

    2. Yeah? Would you also like their stool sample?

    3. Have you boofed yet Mao?

    4. "Yeah? Would you also like their stool sample?"

      We already have them, they're the ones in the MAGA hats.

  6. Why is Somerby watching Tucker Carlson regularly enough to know his format?

    Somerby has spent so much time watching conservative news that he has been converted. This is how the gullible oldsters losing their mental faculties get drawn into the conservative web. If Somerby watches Carlson regularly, why isn't he writing posts about Carlson stuffing cash down his pants, instead of Dear Rachel? Why does he have a different standard for liberals than for conservatives?

    I'd love to see every conservative lie refuted the moment it is spoken, but that isn't how the world works, and that isn't why Trump got elected or why the Republicans are now rolling back every inch of progress made since the 1960s. This is happening because the Republicans are controlled by American (and Russian) oligarchs only interested in their own welfare and they are reshaping the country to serve their own ends. This will change a bit if there are fair midterms because the people are trying to take back their country. But this isn't happening because liberals are so ineffective we let Republicans have their way with us. It is because crooks have infiltrated our democratic process. If Somerby were more alert, he might be analyzing the flaws in democracy and trying to remedy what the Greeks wrought, but he instead wants to place his own guilt on our shoulders. If I knew him personally, I could speculate about where that guilt comes from, but at a distance, he just seems like a huge ass.

    1. Bob has watched and written about cable news incessantly, including Fox News, for thirty years now! If you've read this blog, how could you not be aware of it?

    2. When was the last time he talked about Fox news?

    3. Nice try Hardindr, Bob stopped critiquing the right wing press and it's elements in what we think of as mainstream, at least ten years ago. It has not exactly gone unremarked upon.

    4. anon 6:48 - the last time was in this very post.

  7. The question about what type of therapy Christine Blasey Ford went through is an interesting one. I, too, thought it possible that she went through some type of therapy that could create false memories. Bob's mentioning of Tucker Carlson asserting this (I believe that Jeanine Pirro did this earlier) is something that needs to be pushed back against, unless there is good evidence to think it is the case. Just doing a google search, I couldn't find any reliable reporting as to exactly what kind of therapy Ford went through when she first brought up her claim that Kavanaugh assaulted her thirty-five years ago.

    However, I did find the following:

    Given so much at stake based on one individual’s 36-years-removed memory, and especially her reported dependence on the controversial practice of psychotherapy, Loftus seemed the perfect individual to speak to on the subject. Thankfully, granting the fact that there are so many factors we still don’t know for certain, Loftus happily agreed to speak with me on Saturday about the Kavanaugh case and issues that can arise from relying on memory alone absent corroborating evidence.

    “I don’t see evidence that this is a typical repressed memory case,” Loftus said as we began our talk. “That doesn’t seem to be the pattern here. What does seem to have happened, it appears as if in 2012, 30 years after she was in high school, or age 15, she is in marital counseling for some reason - we don’t know what - and the topic comes up that she was assaulted by some boys in high school.”

    “Why did that come up in marital therapy?” she continued while acknowledging that there seems to be evidence that Ford was assaulted by someone in some manner. “That would be something an investigation might reveal. We have no idea.”

    A key, to Dr. Loftus, is when Ford eventually attached Kavanaugh’s name to what happened to her in 1982.

    “I don’t see any evidence that she said the name at that time [in 2012], so when did she attach the name of Brett Kavanaugh to the episode?” she wondered. “An investigation might reveal that she continued on in the therapy and that they developed in more detail, and it might reveal that - who knows - she looked at yearbooks and tried to identify anybody she might remember from the boys at Georgetown Prep. We just don’t know.”

    Of the possibility that the name could have been added later as a part of “memory recovery” psychological techniques, Loftus responded: “Possibly. It’s just one possibility since we have incomplete information about this.”

    Dr Blasey Ford’s account is that she always remembered and knew what happened to her from the moment it happened, but that she only *told* a therapist about it in 2012. That’s quite different than a “recovered memory.”

    But there is also much we don’t know. Ford has told The Washington Post that she came to terms with the trauma caused by the attack after going through psychotherapy. Were there elements of “recovered memory” in this process? It’s possible that the real-life incident was more ambiguous than Ford now recalls, and that the therapy influenced her memories.

    1. Meh. Much more likely she's just a garden-variety hysterical old lady/faithful member of the lib-zombie death-cult, doing what must be done to Save the World from Evil.

    2. It seems to me that you spend all your free time trolling this blog, since you were banned from Crooked Timber for trolling. I wish I had the amount of free time you do. If you weren't a hikikomori, you could put your free time into helping others, instead of wasting your life.

    3. Techniques used in marriage counseling are very different than those used in repressed memory therapy. For one thing, they are much less suggestive. There is no reason for the counselor to have tried to elicit any additional info about what happened. The goal of marriage counseling is to help resolve conflicts in the marriage -- in this case she said it was because she was insisting on a double front door, which was implemented. The details of who assaulted her or specifically what happened would have been irrelevant to resolving their argument about the door to their home.

    4. I am ignorant as to what types of therapies are used in marriage counseling, but thank you for the information. Do you have a link to a report about the type of therapy Ford underwent with her husband?

    5. This is why there needs to be an investigation. The more details are substantiated, the most likely the remaining details are to be accurate too.

      But I don't understand why there is no much concern about the accuracy of Ford's memory when it is clear that Kavanaugh has already lied about so many things and those lies have been already substantiated by additional witnesses who knew him. We cannot put a liar on the Supreme Court. Given that Ford is not trying to try Kavanaugh for the assault, the rest speaks to his character and that is already sufficiently tarnished to derail this appointment.

    6. hardindr -- no I don't have a link beyond what she said during the hearing about the double front door and her disagreement with her husband and her claustrophobia.

      I am trained as an MFT (Marriage & Family Therapist) in California, with an M.S. in Counseling Psychology. That is the source of my speculation about different kinds of therapy, in which different goals dictate use of different techniques.

    7. I don't think Kavanugh should be confirmed. What he did to the family of Vince Foster is enough to disqualify him from being on the judiciary.

      To the other anonymous, thank you for your information about marital counseling.

    8. Indeed, the Clintons bizarre yet somehow appropriate mention in Kav's flame out throws shame on a lot of silence. Oddly, this is as much true now of Bob than anyone.

    9. Dear dembot, thank you for your very useful reply @6:52 PM.

      Yes: " could put your free time into helping others, instead of wasting your life." is exactly what I was talking about.

      Observing routine behaviour of you dembots and lib-zombie cultists in your natural habitat (like this esteemed blog) is what give me most of the clues, y'know. Science is grateful for your contribution, dear.

    10. Month after month, year after year, you have spent untold hours wasting your time and others trolling this blog, adding nothing of value. One day, I hope you will use your time more productively, so you will not look back on your life when you are elderly and wish you had done something meaningful. Today is a good day to turn over a new leaf and start fresh.

    11. Amen brother! You're such a righteous little brainless dembot. You make ne so happy; I'm so thrilled to be even considered worthy of your princely attention. Carry on, please.

    12. Mao is Lindsey Graham dressed as a man.

    13. hardindr,
      You're being unfair to Mao. He's only here because, like his political heroes, he obviously has an undying love for the Establishment Elites, and he will do anything to keep them in power.

    14. Mao is a paid Russian troll.

  8. Does anyone else find it insulting to be called an animal by Somerby? It is clear he isn't using the term scientifically but intends it to be demeaning. I like animals, but when a person calls another person an animal, they don't usually mean it affectionately. I don't like being chided, but I especially don't like being called an animal by someone who is supposedly on the liberal side. I don't sense that he is using the term in any positive way.

    1. anon 7:33 -I have to wonder how anyone can be so dumb. Aristotle is said to have called humans "rational animals." TDH using that term isn't insulting you - if you think so you got something wrong upstairs. You sound as dumb as the creationists, upset that we are descended from the apes.

  9. The Republicans haven't been displaying rational skills. They have been asserting power by trying to railroad approval of a nominee to the supreme court. That has nothing to do with rationality or any kind of thinking. It is raw abuse of the system. I am glad it failed.

    I want to know why Somerby is saying that any kind of thinking was involved on the part of the people in control of these hearings -- the Republicans.

  10. "in fairness", Trumps is actually a fat, LYING coward:

  11. The biggest lie going around conservative media is that the liberals are simply not hip to sex. But these adolescents and the men they become act out violently in part because what else are women for except for sex? If they were for friendship, surely the school wouldn't have separated them into a different school, or fraternity.

    Fraternities walk down the street chanting slogans about rape. Conservatives have to accept this is a real problem in American society and are shutting their eyes to the entire thing, which allows them the leisure of nitpicking.

    The Big Lie is really the denial that a culture of rape exists.

    1. 4/5 of teenaged males are 4/5 savages. That's never going to change. Women should be taught not to associate alone with teenaged males especially where there is alcohol. Telling teenaged males to stop being savages isn't going to work.

    2. @ 4:24 PM - blame the victim, part one-zillion.

  12. Careful analysis of Judge Kavanaugh's testimony:

    1. Interesting article. He makes a couple of very astute observations, but also some of his conclusions take a bit of leap. One fact is indisputable: Cavanaugh tried to minimize his drinking and raunchy, bawdy behavior in high school. In doing so he comes across as disingenuous. It wouldn't have been that difficult to say that I learned from my high school mistakes.
      Second thing that I noticed were his allusions to some form of a conspiracy. That's just not very judicial of him.

  13. Cue Somerby to chide us on Monday because we can't know whether Kavanaugh was lying or just mistaken without getting into his head. Maybe he really thinks boofing is about farting. Can't wait to hear Somerby's defense of this poor man who has lost everything.

  14. Hilary Hahn, Paavo Jarvi, Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra, Mendelssohn Violin Concerto in E Minor:

  15. It seems likely that Mark Judge was traumatized by what he and his friends did to young women in high school. His drinking and drug abuse may reflect that. If so, he may be a more sensitive person than his friend, Kavanaugh. Judge was talking about these incidents with later girlfriends and wrote a book about it. He blames his father for his problems, but boys can be affected by the things they pressure each other to do.

  16. Judge Kavanaugh said he drank to excess and never blacked out. I drank to excess in college and high school and never blacked out. Good luck proving he was "blacked out" when he fell asleep, which he also testified to. If you Temperance Auxiliary Ladies are going to start gossiping about whether he really knew what boofing is, it's time to step away from politics and check yourself in to a pleasant rehab center where others can do the thinking for you.

    1. Kavanaugh's drinking should be irrelevant to the fact his lying is enough to keep him off the Supreme Court.

    2. Lying about what?

  17. Hello,

    I'm Dr Ogudugu, a real and genuine spell caster/Spiritual healer with years of experience in spell casting and an expert in all spells, i specialize exclusively in LOVE SPELL/GET REUNITE WITH EX LOVER, MONEY SPELL, POWERFUL MAGIC RING, ANY COURT CASES, FRUIT OF THE WOMB, HIV CURE, CURE FOR CANCER, HERPES, DIABETE, HERPERTITIS B, PARKINSON’S HERBAL CURE, BECOMING A MERMAID, BECOMING A VAMPIRE, SAVE CHILD BIRTH. They are all %100 Guaranteed QUICK Results, it most work. If you have any problem and you need a real and genuine spell caster to solve your problems, contact me now through my personal Email Address with problem case...Note-you can also Text/Call on WhatsApp.

    Contact me -
    WhatsApp No: +27663492930