The Business of False Equivocations

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
- Jorge de Santayana
When I was in the US Navy, one of the drabbest jobs we had to do was to polish the
brightworks. The Navy loves it when things shine. What always made me chuckle, though,
was what we used to polish with Never Dull. It never failed that every time we used Never
Dull, a short time later the brightworks would still dull. Isnt that false advertising? I would
ask myself with as much incredulity as I could muster. Alas, it wasnt false advertising, it was
only the name of the product. Therein lies the heart of the false equivocation. You buy a
product because of its name brand, but the product fails to live up to its name. Did you read the
description of the product? Did you read product reviews in regards to its history? Did you
compare it to other similar products? Chances are that you did not. The product simply didnt
live up to its name. Out of exasperation, you spread the claim that the product doesnt work as
advertised and that the manufacturer has lied to you and to others. As conflict is the carrot
dangling out in front of us, the complaint spreads like wildfire. The false equivocation, that the
product does not match the expectation of its brand name, takes hold, and no amount of truth
from others will sway the detractors of their uninformed opinion.
The 2016 Election Cycle brought to light a plethora of false equivocations, and to cover
them all would require pages and pages. What can be seen, however, is how many of them
intersect, overlap, and piggyback with one another. Where does the above quote from Santayana
relate to the web of false equivocations? His aphorism has graduated to the level of clich and
has become a shield for those that reference it. The argument of history being repetitive is a
common basis for most false equivocations. History was once a gold mine, explored, mined, and
sifted through to find all the richest nuggets. Now that history can be accessed immediately and
on a whim, it has become a cherry tree to picked and the rotten fruit discarded to gain the
argumentative advantage. The human condition has pulled the rug out from under our learnd
feet.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President of the United States, and so valued
is his name to the party that they call themselves the Party of Lincoln. That name is touted
joyfully during election cycles, when the incumbents and challengers vie for political seats; and
it is also a staple of the Republican constituency when attacking the Democrats. Youve all seen
the meme below, it is common in your face debate material to prove that the Democratic party
is still the party of racism and slavery. It is a means to an end, as the narrative says that the
Democrats have maintained their enslavement of the black race through expansion of the
welfare state. Its even gone so far as to become the basis of a hit documentary by Dinesh
DSouza, a far-right Conservative pundit that has become a voice for anti-Democratic messages.
The documentary, titled Hillarys America, walks through the history of slavery, Civil
Rights, and the Democratic Party as the consistent perpetrators of racism against the black
community and white supremacy. Nothing more than a political attack on Hillary Clinton, the
feature has become a trove of cherry-picked history for the defense of modern conservatism.

Modern conservatism, as touted by the Republican Party, has its roots in Dixie. In
modern parlance, the southern states are, and always have been, overwhelmingly conservative.
The Great Plains and the Upper Midwest have also become havens of modern conservativism,
but, outside of the urban centers and the lower Mississippi River banks, the old Confederacy is
the heart of the state sovereignty, anti-federalist part of the Republican platform. The South is
also the heart of American Christendom, what politicians and pundits like to refer to as the
Evangelical voting bloc. From this arises the stereotype of the gun-totin Bible-thumpers, and,
with the history of the southern states, the stereotype that all Conservatives are racists. Recently,
there has also been a fight over the flying of the Confederate Battle Flag, and what it means to be
of southern heritage, or to have southern pride. As a social orthodoxy, the fight to absolve
the South of its slave history, or to, at the least, dissociate the Southern Pride from the black eye
of slavery, has become a key component in resurgent case of Lincoln being a tyrant. Did you
just have one of those huh moments, too? Indeed, there are southern conservatives that vote for
the Party of Lincoln, who also think that our 16th President was a tyrant of the worst degree.
What make Lincoln a tyrant? The proofs are many, but the most common one, by far,
has to be his orchestrating the invasion of the South. The cause for the invasion is given as the
Morrill Tariff, a piece of legislation that was not signed into law until after the secessions began.
Imposed as a means to promote the growth of the fledgling northern manufacturing companies
by making overseas imports more expensive, the southern states saw it as a calculated maneuver
to overtax them. Southern wealth outpaced northern wealth in the first half of the 19th Century,
and they felt that they were also paying more taxes than they should have been. The specter of
the Morrill Tariff was a stark reminder of the Nullification Crisis that occurred nearly 30 years
prior, the tariffs at the center of the crisis having the same goal as Morrill, to encourage the
people to buy American and increase nationalism. Its seems rather ironic that southern
conservatives chose to secede over the raising of import tariffs in 1861, but chose to elect a
president in 2016 who promised to do the exact same thing, for the exact same reasons. But,
changes in your economy over time will change your outlook on the same topic, it seems. And so
came the melding of the state sovereignty, pro-slavery stance of the Confederate States of
America. Twenty-nine years prior to the secession of South Carolina, it was the target of the
Force Bill of 1832, signed into law by Andrew Jackson, which was the first time that federal
force of arms was authorized against an outlaw state. The idea of secession from the United
States became a precedent 18 years before the Force Bill, in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814. The
New England Federalists, a fringe arm of the original Federalist Party from the nations birth,
discussed the separation of the New England states due to grievances over ballooning federal
power during the War of 1812.

GEORGE WASHINGTON
Is it legal, per the Constitution, for a state to secede from the Union? In 1869, the United
States Supreme Court, in their decision of Texas v White, said that there were only two means by
which a state may successfully separate itself from the United States: 1) by a successful, open
revolution against the federal government; 2) through a 2/3 majority of state legislatures
authorizing the separation. However, prior to 1869, and all the way back to 1787, it was a hotly
debated topic. In the original Constitution, there was no explicit text discussing a states legal
right to secede. Because of this, there is no evidence, within the document, itself, of whether the
Founding Fathers desired a duel federalist government, or a cooperative federalist government.
In the former, state governments and the federal government have equal standing in power; in the
latter, the federal government has more power than the states. The crux of the argument is in
what powers the Constitution ascribes to the federal government, and what powers belong to the
states; and the following clauses from the Constitution provide the ammunition for both sides:
The Commerce Clause (Art I, Sect 8): The Congress shall have power to regulate
Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
The Necessary and Proper Clause (Art I, Sect 8): Congress shall have power to make
all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers,
and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in
any Department or Officer thereof.
The Supremacy Clause (Art VI, Sect 2): This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to
the Contrary notwithstanding.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.
It was this very issue, which pitted Alexander Hamilton against Thomas Jefferson, that
ushered in the majority two-party political system we are accustomed to. So, both sides of the
secession debate are equally capable of invoking the Founding Fathers and not be held in
contempt. Alexander Hamilton took the reins of the Federalists, those who advocated for a strong
central government and a central banking system. Hamilton looked to the very country the states
just broke free of, Britain. However, through the parliamentary system, Hamilton saw the
blueprint for greatness in the goal of solidifying a place on the international stage and competing
internationally through the economic gains of industrialism. In those days, the Federalist views
were considered conservative, as they did not want to diverge too much from the old English
system of governance. Across the aisle stood Thomas Jefferson, the leader of the DemocraticRepublicans. He, and his fellow Democrats, held the liberal view of state level governance being
equally as powerful as the federal government. The Democrats felt that the ultimate protection of
the People was to prevent the federal government any chance of becoming too powerful; and
giving equal power to the states was the greatest check on that power.
In what he thought would be his last official act as an officer in the United States,
General George Washington sent signed copies of the new Constitution to each of the thirteen
state legislatures. From his experiences on the battlefield, and the logistics troubles he ran into in
running the military campaigns, Washington chose to send a letter with the copies of the
Constitution. If read in totality, one can make the parallel between Washingtons troubles and

some of the issues faced by several Confederate generals 80 years later. Washington saw the
importance of cooperative federalism from the point of view of the military, and the need for the
federal government to have the power to direct troop movements to serve the common defense,
and to ensure the individual states took on the proper responsibilities in compensation, quarter,
and health for soldiers not of their state. He also referred to the union of the states, under the
Constitution, to be indissoluble.
This is the time of their political probation, this is the moment when the eyes of the
whole World are turned upon them, this is the moment to establish or ruin their national
Character forever, this is the favorable moment to give such a tone to our Federal Government,
as will enable it to answer the ends of its institution, or this may be the ill-fated moment for
relaxing the powers of the Union, annihilating the cement of the Confederation, and exposing us
to become the sport of European politics, which may play one state against another to prevent
their own interested purposes.
And later: There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the wellbeing, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an independent power:
1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head
2ndly. A sacred regard to Public Justice
3rdly. The adoption of a Proper Peace Establishment, and
4thly. The prevalence of the pacific and friendly Disposition, which will induce them to
forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which
requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual
advantages to the interest of the Community.
The Federalists, headed by Hamilton, Washington, and James Madison, won the first two
presidential terms of the infant United States. Thomas Jefferson, and his DemocraticRepublicans, then took the next three terms. However, halfway through President Washingtons
term, James Madison, because of his disagreement with the Alien and Sedition Act, chose to join
Jeffersons party.
Either side of the modern political aisle, in whatever constitutional debate may arise, is
justified in invoking the Founding Fathers to come to their defense. Unfortunately, in an effort to
prove their case, they will either encase all the Founding Fathers into a single mold to prevent a
rebuttal argument, or they will cherry-pick a singular quote without expanding on the context of
the quote. The true travesty lies in the fact that the political class knows that their constituents
will rarely investigate their claims, thus perpetuating a truncated truth, or an outright lie. In
essence, they buy the Never Dull by brand name only and not bother to read the description of
the product.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: RELOADED

Thomas Jefferson became the 3rd President of the United States, giving control of the
United States to the Democratic-Republican Party as the 19th Century began. It would be a
century of rapid change and severe growing pains for the infant nation, as it was faced with
solidifying its spot on the world stage, finding common ground for proper governance, and
westward expansion. The Democratic-Republicans rapidly evolved and became, simply, the
Democrat Party. They held tight to the duel federalist form of governance, and were concentrated
in the southern states. As a mainly agrarian economy, the South relied heavily upon the
institution of slavery, and their gaining wealth came mostly from the cotton trade with Europe.

The toll of the War of 1812 on the northern states was made visible with the fracturing of the
Federalists, and the Whig Party arose from the Federalist ashes; the last of the Federalists
disappeared following the failed secession movement in New England during 1814-1815. But,
the Whigs were not to last long, either. The empires of Europe quickly began to outlaw the
institution of slavery, especially that of African slavery. There were many like minds in the
northern states, and the birth of the American abolitionist movement took hold. This was a
fracturing point of the Whig Party. Those fractures deepened with the passage of the Fugitive
Slave Acts, aimed at protecting southern property. While the Whigs began to disintegrate, the
Southern Democrats became more emboldened. Coupled with the fluctuation in import tariffs to
foster northern industry, the division between North and South began to grow towards it
irreparable state. Further complicating matters were debates over the legality of slavery in the
western territories.
Thus, in the 1850s, the stage was set. Democrat James Buchanan became the President
of United States; born in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Buchanan was a slave owner and identified
strongly with the states-rights, pro-slavery southern states. The complaints over import tariff
levels prompted Buchanan and the Democrat-controlled Congress to pass the Tariff of 1857,
which lowered tariffs to levels not seen since before the War of 1812. This piece of legislation
solidified the existence of a new political party, the Republican Party. Based on the ideals of
Alexander Hamilton and the original Federalists, their platform advocated for a strong central
government and progression towards a national banking system. In 1858, the Republicans found
their golden ticket, an embattled politician from Illinois, who was in the race for a national senate
seat. Abraham Lincoln lost the senate election to Stephen Douglas, but the Republicans courted
Lincoln two years later as their nominee for President of the United States. In the presidential
election of 1860, Lincoln once again faced Douglas, but, this time, he came out on top. The
nation soon descended into civil war, and Lincoln would eventually free the slaves; his first
move towards that being the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863.
The Emancipation Proclamation is just one of the many things that modern Confederates
point to in their condemnation of Lincoln as a tyrant. He is seen as the man that led the Union
invasion of the southern states, despite the fact that all of the accusations concerning his acts of
tyranny occurred after the firing on Fort Sumter, South Carolina, by Confederate troops.
Following the loss of Fort Sumter, in April of 1861, President Lincoln made an immediate call
on 75,000 Union troops and suspended the writ of habeas corpus from Washington, DC to
Philadelphia. In order to further protect Washington, DC, with its location within the border state
of Maryland, Lincoln quickly declared a state of martial law there. The Unions battle strategy
was to capture Richmond, Virginia, the newly named capital of the Confederate States of
America, as quickly as possible. In early June, 1861, it seemed obvious that the capture of
Richmond would fail. Therefore, Lincoln made the call for another 300,000 troops. He expanded
martial law to the entirety of the Union and suspended habeas corpus in all border states in rapid
succession. All of this without the consent of Congress. He took relatively severe steps against
the press, as well, when he felt that their reporting would lead to attrition on the battlefield. And,
in what some consider to be his most egregious move, the president ignored a ruling by the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court that the suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional. Why?
Everybody has that ONE thing that they believe in without fail; ONE thing that they will
fight for with little regard for anything else. Where Abraham Lincoln and his Federalist
predecessor, George Washington, thought alike was in the pure sanctity of the Union, that
NOTHING could allow it to be dissolved. His reading of the Constitution hardened that feeling

within him, and he would do what he must to prevent the breaking of that Union. Confederates,
and modern-day Confederates, consistently refer to the war as the War Between the States, or
the War for Southern Independence; Abraham Lincoln saw it as an insurrection, a rebellion.

PRIDE AND PREJUDICE

National pride is a razors edge concept, and that edge was no more defined by the
American Civil War; though, the hyperpartisan atmosphere of the 2016 Election Cycle has
shined a major spotlight on it. As discussed above, within the federalist style of governance,
there are two types, cooperative and duel. The Hamiltonian North was cooperative federalism,
whereas the Jeffersonian South was duel federalism; and, when the war began, both sides were
very excited to go to war with each other. Citizens of the Union and the Confederacy, both, took
to the streets in celebration when word spread of the attack on, and the fall of, Fort Sumter. To
this day, 150 years later, we still call each other Yankee and Rebel, and we boast of Union Pride
and Southern Pride. The question then arises, who had/has more pride? The answer is not a
simple one.
The industrial North, two and a half times more populous than the South, saw in
themselves the ability to become a major influence in the world at large. They saw their
burgeoning economic power as the driver towards gaining political influence over their European
rivals. National pride came in the form of international acknowledgement and respect. This was
the motive behind the import tariff hikes, to enforce a buy American ideal. And this required a
more unitary style of government, where federal power reigns over state power, within
constitutional bounds. The Confederacy, on the other hand, found its national pride in culture and
ideology. As many modern Confederates will tell you, today, the South just wanted to be left
alone. Their agrarian economy fostered isolationism. Southern hospitality could be found no
matter where you went in the South, however, the people in Louisiana, for example, felt little
need to interact with, or influence, the people of South Carolina. This is where the duel
federalism of the Confederacy held sway. The federal level of government had equal power to
the states, and, in some cases, seemed to have greater power; this would seem to border on the
confederation-style of governance, and would seem to fit well with the very title of the nation. In
the modern world, organizations such as the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, and the European Union would all fit into the confederation-style; however,
confederations based on politics (the UN), military (NATO), and economics (the EU) tend to
lack in influence or longevity.
Of course, in the Confederacy, their economics were inextricably tied to their culture and
ideology. Their wealth was in the plantations and the cotton trade, their major trading partners
being Britain and France. As a result, the institution of slavery was integral to their wealth, and,
as spoken by Alexander Stephens, it was the cornerstone of the Confederate States of America.
The four states that drafted letters of secession to be submitted to the Union all spoke of the
importance of slavery, though, the letter from Georgia was only implicit about it. Even more than
that, the Confederate Constitution spelled out the importance of the institution and prohibited any
federal or state law that would alter the place of slaves within the Confederate society. Modern
Confederates will argue incessantly that the fight for Southern independence was NOT over
slavery, but, the evidence is too much to the contrary.
While current Southern Pride is rooted in its hospitality, and its slow, easy-going lifestyle,
the legacy of the Confederacy is rooted in slavery. It is a forever stain upon the short-lived
nation, and the prejudice, bigotry, and racism will always overshadow the brave and noble

actions of the Confederate soldiers that fought for their country. That legacy, as mentioned
above, has its ultimate roots in the Constitution of the United States of America, and its 3/5
Clause. Since the white population of the North was so much greater than the South, a
compromise was made to count each slave as 3/5 of a person to provide more representation in
Congress. Additionally, such prejudice and bigotry was NOT limited to the southern states. There
were slave owners in the North, there were northern shippers that made significant profits
through the shipping of slaves from Africa, and most did believe that the black race was inferior.
What set the South apart is knowing that they fought to maintain the institution. This has left
modern Confederates searching for an absolution, for a way to prove that the North was just as
guilty in the realms of bigotry and racism as the South. It has gone so far, even half a century on
from the Civil Rights Act, that history is being rewritten for political gain. The focus of this
history is the Ku Klux Klan, and their formation following the Civil War by Southern Democrats.
Disregarding a century of shifting political ideologies, many argue that, following desegregation,
the Democrats found a new way to enslave the black race through the welfare state, or the
Nanny State. By keeping them under thumb economically and socially, the Democrats have
made them irrevocably reliant on government hand-outs. As confirmation for this claim,
studies are pointed to that indicate increased racism throughout the northern states which
outweighs the amount of racism in the South. Unfortunately, the increase in overall bigotry in the
North is a result of increased bigotry of blacks, and other minorities, against whites. This has
provided ammunition for the resurgence of white nationalist groups in the United States, and has
further expanded the social and political chasms that have existed since the time of the Founding
Fathers.
National unity, though, can be seen in a more subtle way. For the United States, this
particular way didnt gain momentum until, you guessed it, after the Civil War. On April, 24th,
1887, the Washington Post published an article with the following text: There was a time a few
years ago when the United States was spoken of in the plural. Men said the United States are
the United States have the United States were. But the war changed all that The
surrender of Mr. Davis and Gen. Lee meant a transition from the plural to the singular. This
debate drug on into the second decade of the 20th Century, and it had its detractors. Those who
disagreed with the singular usage looked to the Constitution for their defense.
But, a nation in its infancy is much different than a nation thats had a near-death
experience. Did the debate have any relevance, though? Was this debate just an American thing?
No, it was not and is not. This distinction can be seen in the German language, too. A duel
federation, or a confederation, would be defined by them as a Staatenbund, or Band-of-States; a
cooperative federation would be defined as a Bundesstaat, or a Banded-State. Again, based
solely on the Constitution of the United States, the defense of either is left to the interpretation
one has of the document. However, five years before the Constitutions ratification, in 1782, the
Continental Congress adopted the Great Seal of the United States of America; and upon that seal
was emblazoned a Latin phrase: E Pluribus Unum, Out of Many, One.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: REVOLUTIONS

It was September 18th, 1858, in Charleston, Illinois, and Abraham Lincoln was facing off
against Democrat Stephen Douglas for one of two national Senate seats. In this oft-cited speech,
those who seek to absolve the Confederacy of the institution of slavery claim this as evidence
that Lincoln did not care about the black race, or slavery. Yet, the misinterpretation of his words
exists. So, I offer into the record the excerpt from Lincolns opening speech:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way
the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in
favor of making voters or jurors negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry
with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between
the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on
terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain
together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as much as any other
man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this
occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the
negro should be denied every thing I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never had a
black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along
without making either slaves or wives of negroes.
This sounds ever-so-damning in regards to the thought process of our 16th President. But,
if you read again the two statements in bold, you will see that, despite concurring with the idea
that whites were superior to blacks, he saw that they could coexist without the need for slavery.
Could this speech be nothing more than pandering for votes? Its possible, as later in the speech
he presents an argument towards a specific right of the states that would become federally
determined, in the end. However, this excerpt is the most commonly cited quote that Lincoln did
not go to war with the Confederates to abolish slavery. It is, indeed, true that Lincoln did not go
to war to end slavery, but the citation above did not insinuate that he condoned the institution,
either. Lincoln went to war to maintain the indissoluble Union at all costs. In a letter written to
Judge Horace Greeley, of New York, on August 22nd, 1862, Lincoln stated boldly:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and not either to save or
destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could
save it by freeing all slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving
others alone I would also do that.
So, yes, whether it was cold-hearted or not, Lincoln was doing what he felt was right to
maintain the United States as an indissoluble union. The Emancipation Proclamation WAS a
political ploy, hoping that the specter of freedom would drive the African slaves to rebel against
the Confederacy.
Interpretation is a powerful concept In one interpretation of the Constitution, President
Lincoln determined the Confederate States as actors in a rebellion against that Constitution. He
saw the need for public safety, and so took all executive actions that he deemed necessary to
quell that rebellion. And, as a show of his integrity, once the war was over he chose to set aright
those actions he took that that could, or would, be deemed as overreaches of power. In a second
interpretation, the Confederate States saw their right to separate themselves from the Union,
thereby placing them outside of its jurisdiction. By this reasoning, they were able to refer to the
Norths actions as an unlawful invasion of their lands.

FUTURE IMPERFECT
Following the Civil War was a century and a quarter of political uncertainty;
Reconstruction, the First World War, the Roaring 20s, the Great Depression, the Second World
War, the Civil Rights Era, Viet Nam, the Cold War, the 20th Century was one upheaval after
another, and with the ever-increasing population and diversity within the United States, the two
dominant political parties were in a state of flux within the ideologies. To be labeled as a
Conservative was not always to be labeled as a Democrat, and to be labeled as a Liberal was not

always to be labeled as a Republican. In fact, Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat that faced the
wrath of his entire party when he signed the Civil Rights Act; and there were many more such
instances where politicians and their parties did not see eye-to-eye. Ronald Reagan, the modernday saint of the Republican Party, famously remarked after switching political parties, I didnt
leave the Democratic Party, the Party left me.
It is this tumultuous time in politics that has given rise to the plethora of false
equivocations that we see today. While the party lines are as solid now as they were prior to the
Civil War, the fluidity of 20th Century politics has allowed the black and white of today to
misconstrue the very history of our nation. The most common of arguments to heard is that the
fault of urban dilapidation of so many cities in the nation is due to Democratic leadership. Many
of these cities have, indeed, been under Democratic control for decades; but the truth is that those
Democrats have not always shared the same ideological platforms.

SOCIETAL BRIGHTWORKS
Many of us care about the nations leadership, and their capability to lead. With the
advent of social media and 24-hour news channels, we have been provided an unprecedented
ability to share our ideas with each other, en masse. Therein lies one of the greatest dichotomies
of a large and diverse society; the more information that the society, as a whole, has access to,
the less they will tend to utilize it. Therefore, the majority of that society will relegate themselves
to seeing and learning history through algorithmic trends, allowing historical complexities to be
lost.
History is our brightworks, and the media is our Never Dull. The media will sell us the
story, the click bait as its been dubbed. And, it is up to us to see past the label, to read the
story, and to do the work and bring the shine back to history. To be knowledgeable about
history, to understand its complexities, and to apply it to todays issues, will make us able to put
the Business of False Equivocation out of business.
Anthony Stauffer
December, 16th 2016