Young Muslim radicals running for mayor in big cities are the talk of the town in left-wing circles, and within the Democratic Party. Leftwing activists are thrilled by the news, but Democrats are split: some hope the two extremists win, but more moderate Democrats are afraid this will turn off most Americans, making it hard to win elections in the future.

New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani is ahead in the polls in the New York City mayoral race, and Minnesota State Senator Omar Fateh is the one to beat in the race for mayor of Minneapolis. Both call themselves democratic socialists, and both are highly critical of the human rights record of the United States. Yet neither says a word about the human rights record of their African ancestors.

Mamdani

Mamdani was born in Uganda to Indian parents. He refuses to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which is understood as a call for an uprising against the supporters of Israel. He says, “That’s not language that I use.” But his supporters do, and he will not call them out for doing so. He says he believes in “universal human rights,” though his record does not show it.

In March 2025, Mamdani responded to the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University student and Palestinian activist who was arrested by ICE officers on March 8. He said Khalil’s arrest “is a blatant assault on the First Amendment and a sign of advancing authoritarianism under Trump.”

In 2021, Mamdani said that his answer to the homeless is to jettison the practice of “people access housing by purchasing it on the market and toward a future where we guarantee high quality housing to all as a human right.”

In a 2020 tweet marking Pride Month, Mamdani criticized the socalled human rights struggles faced by those in the LGBT community. He said that “it’s more important than ever to reckon with how our queer family – especially our Black & trans family – still don’t enjoy basic human rights, and how they suffer from police violence at epidemic proportions.”

Mamdani likes to flag his ties to Uganda, but does not want to call attention to its human rights record. Instead, he basks in luxury.

He recently jetted off to his family’s opulent compound in the tony Ugandan neighborhood of Buziga Hill for his wedding. The three-day event saw the family estate turn into a party house among the lavish homes owned by billionaires and the upper crust of society in Uganda. Homes in the neighborhood easily fetch one million dollars. For his wedding, Mamdani had special forces commandos providing security to keep the riffraff out of the invitation-only soiree.

Fateh

Fateh is the son of Somali immigrants, and the first item on his platform states, “with Donald Trump back in the Oval Office, the progress towards equity and justice that our communities have worked so hard to create is in jeopardy.”

In 2023, when the Minnesota State Senate debated legislation that would give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, Fateh came to the defense of the illegals. He noted that the real threats to national security “look like the members [white Republicans] that sit in the front rows.”

In 2021, Fateh was part of a group of Minnesota lawmakers, led by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), calling for the Department of Justice to investigate how local law enforcement prepared for the trial of Derek Chauvin, the policeman charged with the death of George Floyd. Fateh and his colleagues accused the police of using “extreme and unnecessary force,” even going as far as deploying “‘less-lethal’ munitions and chemical weapons indiscriminately.” According to the letter, this amounts to the police failing to “uphold civil and human rights.”

Fateh likes to brag about Somalia being “his home,” yet he has nothing to say about its human rights record.

In 2020, he gave a speech in which he referred to Somalia as his home several times. “I understand that our Somali communities are all connected to each other, here in Minnesota and back home, and I ask for your support. There’s always been a link between our community here as well as back home and I’m running to bridge that gap and unite all of us and represent all of us because when we succeed here, we succeed everywhere.”

Human Rights in Uganda and Somalia

Freedom House is a well respected organization that details the state of human rights in every nation in the world. It studies political participation, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and the like. It awards a score for “Political Rights” and “Civil Liberties,” and an overall score.

The composite score for Uganda was 34 out of 100. For Somalia, it was 8. That is why they were both deemed “Not Free.” The United States had a composite score of 84 and was deemed “Free.”

How can it be that Mamdani and Fateh are so condemnatory of human rights in the United States, which is a free country, yet keep their mouths shut about egregious human rights abuses in their ancestral homes? Maybe they should trade places with the Ugandan and the Somali people. That would be a win-win.

There was a time, not long ago, when Republicans and Democrats had more in common with each other than they had with third-parties, either on the right or the left. No more. This chart shows how far Democrats have moved left, making them almost indistinguishable from hard-core left-wing parties.

In mid-July, a federal district judge ruled that a controversial bill that would eviscerate the priest-penitent privilege was unconstitutional. It was due to a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice that settled this issue.

The Trump administration’s lawyers filed suit in June, saying that Senate Bill 5375 violates the free exercise of religion for all Catholics. Specifically, it requires priests to violate the seal of Confession; they could be excommunicated if they disclosed what the penitent said.

“Laws that explicitly target religious practices such as the Sacrament of Confession in the Catholic Church have no place in our society,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

Judge David Estudillo agreed. He said the bill “modifies existing law solely to make members of the clergy mandatory reporters with respect to child abuse and neglect.” As such, the law is “neither neutral nor generally applicable” insofar as it “treats religious activity less favorably than comparable secular activity.”

The Catholic League addressed this issue in January. That is when Bill Donohue wrote to all lawmakers in the state of Washington. He also wrote to its most vocal advocate, State Sen. Noel Frame, in May, registering his criticisms of the measure.

In his letter to the state’s legislators, Donohue asked the following: “Where is the evidence that child molesters—in any state—report their crimes to priests in the confessional? We have been studying this issue for decades but we can’t name a single instance where this had happened. If any lawmaker has evidence to the contrary, you have an obligation to make it public. If not, what exactly are you trying to do?”

In his letter to Sen. Frame, Donohue took aim at a disingenuous remark she made. She said, “I am reminded that Canon law has changed many times over the years in the Catholic faith and there’s nothing to say they cannot change their rules to allow the reporting of real time abuse and neglect of children. That is within their power to change and I think they should do so.”

Donohue replied, “Funny thing is I feel the same way about your state legalizing assisted suicide. Except I would recommend that state law follow Canon law.” He added, “I am reminded that state law has changed many times over the years in secular society and there’s nothing to say they cannot change their rules to follow Canon law and put an end to assisted suicide. That is within their power to change and I think they should do so.”

What is really outrageous about bills like this is that its proponents are not seriously concerned about child sexual abuse. If they were, they would know that this problem in the Catholic Church has long been checked. Instead, they would turn their attention to the public schools— that is where minors are being molested, yet nothing is done about it.

It is no secret that the teachers’ unions are among the most generous donors to the Democrats. Accordingly, Democrat lawmakers are reluctant to anger them. They are ready to ignore those administrators, teachers, counselors and coaches who are preying on children, lest their coffers suffer.

Whenever the state encroaches on religion, as the lawmakers in Washington sought to do, it is a threat to all people of faith, not just the ones targeted by a particular bill. That is why Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others need to oppose these bills. It is only a matter of time before the same lawmakers come after them.

There is a major component of President Trump’s signature spending bill, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” that is of keen interest to the Catholic League—the school choice provisions.

The bill provides a full tax credit for Americans who donate to third-party scholarship granting organizations. These generous people will be eligible to take off $1,700 from their taxes each year. In turn, these donations will be used as scholarships that families can put towards paying for tuition or other educational expenses.

For the first time in American history, the federal government is providing a real alternative to families plagued by failing public schools that refuse to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic so that they can indoctrinate young minds turning them into woke activists.

Of course, as with every other aspect of these massive spending packages, the school choice provision was subjected to the usual procedural measures and horse trading that impacted its final shape. While the Senate Parliamentarian watered-down the more robust version that allowed for more funding for this critical measure, a bigger concern was the inclusion of an opt-out clause allowing blue states, who need alternatives the most, the option of not participating in the scholarship programs.

While this will lessen the impact of this program, it is a step in the right direction and illustrates that there is always more to do on the critical issue of school choice. For our part, the Catholic League will continue to lead in this critical fight.

Brooklyn Bishop Emeritus Nicholas DiMarzio has been sold out by the Archdiocese of Newark. The archdiocese has agreed to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars to two men who accused the bishop of abuse, even though a twoyear Vatican investigation cleared him of all wrongdoing; he also passed a lie detector test.

The Newark archdiocese, led by Cardinal Joseph Tobin, said they agreed to a settlement to “avoid the costs of litigation and help bring resolution to painful matters for everyone involved.” They failed— by selling out DiMarzio they added to his painful situation. “I did not authorize these settlements because I did not abuse anyone,” the bishop said.

It was in November 2019 that attorney Mitchell Garabedian, whose hatred of the Catholic Church is well known—he calls the Church “evil”—made a big public splash when he said he was going to file suit against DiMarzio for abusing Mark Matzek. The following year, another alleged victim of the bishop, also represented by Garabedian, Samier Tadros, went public with his allegation. Yet no lawsuits were filed until 2021.

If this sounds fishy, it is because it is.

Bishop DiMarzio categorically denies both accusations and his lawyer, Joseph Hayden, said in 2020, “We have uncovered conclusive evidence of Bishop DiMarzio’s innocence.” As Bill Donohue said at the time, “No lawyer, aside from those like Garabedian, would put his name on the line with such an unequivocal statement unless he knew his case was a slam dunk.” In 2021, the Vatican concluded, after an exhaustive probe, that the charges against him did not have “the semblance of proof.”

Here’s where it gets really fishy.

Why would anyone wait a half century to bring a lawsuit? That’s right—the two males alleged they were abused in the 1970s and early 1980s when DiMarzio was a priest in Jersey City. How is it possible that the parents of these boys never knew about it—Tadros says the abuse started when he was 6 years old and happened “repeatedly”— especially given its alleged serial nature?

The Associated Press broke the Tadros story. What makes this interesting is that Garabedian chose Michael Rezendes of AP to go public. The two men are from Boston, and know each other well. Rezendes was a reporter who worked on the “Spotlight” team of the Boston Globe that found wrongdoing in the Boston archdiocese, and Garabedian’s role in it was featured in the movie by the same name; he was played by Stanley Tucci.

Rezendes showed his true colors by citing, as authoritative, the National Catholic Reporter. He called it “an independent Catholic newspaper.” In fact, the only thing independent about it is its independence from the teachings of the Catholic Church. Worse, its attack on the Church’s teachings on sexuality helped to foment the sexual abuse crisis that Rezendes covered.

Rezendes then offers a quote from BishopAccountability, a website known for leaving the names of accused priests found innocent on its list of accused priests. It has also smeared Cardinal Timothy Dolan, and has never accepted Bill Donohue’s challenge to provide evidence that he was hiding dozens of molesting priests.

Bishop DiMarzio was singled out because he fought unjust legislation that was targeted at the Catholic Church, bills that allowed the public schools to get off scot-free. New York State Assemblywoman Margaret Markey, who represented a district in the Brooklyn diocese, was the one who pushed for a suspension of the statute of limitations for sexual abuse crimes, permitting a free ride to the public sector.

In 2016, this former office holder accused DiMarzio of offering her a $5,000 bribe. But it was all a lie. She admitted she was wrong about the date of their meeting— by three years—and wrong about the venue. She was also wrong about her accusation, which was undercut by witnesses at the meeting.

Bishop DiMarzio is a good man who has given his life to the Catholic Church. He is innocent of these scurrilous charges, and now he is being sold out by the Archdiocese of Newark.

On July 21, when Bill Maher interviewed Billy Joel, the singer said that when he first sang, “Only the Good Die Young”—which had a snappy line about Catholic girls, he got some blowback. Maher responded, “I  mean, I guess it—look I’ve had many letters from William Donohue, the head of the Catholic League. He literally challenged me to a fight. Really? Like two 60-something year-old men in the parking lot with our short sleeves rolled up. Really? But that’s how the Catholic Church feels about me.”

The gist of what he said is right, but not the particulars. Donohue never wrote to him, but a number of years ago he did joke with Megan Kelly that he would like to put on the Everlast [boxing gloves] and meet Maher in Madison Square Garden.

Maher never got over it. He complained to Larry King about Bill’s invitation but Larry simply said, “Bill takes his religion very seriously.”

Donohue advised Maher to bring a stool.

Georgetown University, which identifies as Catholic, has a Muslim problem. There is nothing new about this, but now that it is front and center, it can no longer be ignored.

On July 15, Robert Groves, the interim president of Georgetown, testified before the House Committee on Education and Workplace. He told the panel that one of his tenured professors, Jonathan Brown, a convert to Islam, is no longer chairman of the university’s department of Arabic and Islamic studies.

Iran is the primary source of terrorism in the Middle East, and a potential nuclear threat to Israel and the U.S. It was due to the escalating attacks on Israel that the U.S. bombed Iranian nuclear facilities in June. Brown, who holds an endowed chair at Georgetown, responded by saying Iran should attack U.S. military bases in the Middle East. “I am not an expert, but I assume Iran could still get a bomb easily. I hope Iran does some symbolic strike on a base, then everyone stops.”

The Georgetown president told federal lawmakers that “Within minutes of our learning of that tweet, the dean contacted Professor Brown. The tweet was removed. We issued a statement condemning the tweet. Professor Brown is no longer chair of his department. He’s on leave, and we’re beginning a process of reviewing the case.”

Brown’s hatred of the Jewish state was made plain after Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023. In an unprovoked barrage, the Iranian-backed terrorists killed 1,200 men, women and children, leaving 3,000 injured. Brown, the son-in-law of convicted terrorist supporter Sami Al-Arian, defended Hamas. More than that, he said “Israel has been engaged in a genocidal project for decades.”

This is vintage Brown. He is such an extremist that he claims Israel has a Nazi-like history. “Israel will go down in history as a country whose main claims to fame are genocide, racial fanaticism on the level of the Third Reich and religious fanaticism that makes ISIS look mellow.”

Similarly, Brown wonders why so many Jews have “embraced genocide as a core tenet.” Indeed, he contends that this is “an inalienable part of their faith.” Just as obscene, he portrays the Israeli army as evil, saying it is “objectively the most effective child-killing machine in modern history.”

It should not come as a surprise that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is standing by their man, even after Brown’s admission that he hopes Iran strikes U.S. military installations. In 2014, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) designated CAIR a terrorist organization. And on July 15, Rep. Elise Stefanik said that CAIR was a co-conspirator in a terrorist-financing case and has ties to Hamas.

In a letter  to Groves, CAIR pleaded its case for Brown, arguing that the investigation should be called off and he should be fully reinstated.

Bill Donohue wrote to Groves as well, but his my recommendations were very different from the one CAIR made.

Brown may be the most conspicuous anti-Jewish professor at Georgetown, but he is hardly alone. Mobashra Tazamal also teaches there and his specialty is “Islamophobia.” He is known for comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Nothing phobic about that—it’s simply a malicious lie.

To understand why Georgetown has a Muslim problem, all we need do is follow the money.

In 1977, Libya bought an endowed chair for $750,000. This was done under the auspices of Muammar Gaddafi, the brutal dictator and ally of the Soviet Union.  In 2005, Saudi Arabia gave $20 million to establish a Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. It is known for banning Christianity and oppressing women, two issues that are a flagrant violation of the mission of this Jesuit-run institution. But this is chicken feed compared to what Qatar has given.

Qatar has greased Georgetown to the tune of over $1 billion. These include funds to operate Georgetown’s Qatar campus. This has real-life consequences: everything from research to faculty hiring and curriculum development reflect the priorities of the Qatari regime.

Didn’t anyone at Georgetown complain about this arrangement? Yes, the Georgetown Voice did, but it is a student newspaper. The administration and faculty simply ignored their plea to close the Doha campus. Money talks.

At the D.C. campus, Brown was a beneficiary of Qatar generosity. The regime funded a post he occupied, the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service. But the real damage done by the Qatar-Georgetown nexus is not Brown’s chairmanship—it is the damage done by those who graduate from the university’s School of Foreign Service.

The report does not exaggerate when it says that this school “has produced more U.S. diplomats and ambassadors than any other institute. Many alumni have been shaped by ideologically slanted curricula and faculty with close ties to foreign leaders. These graduates go on to shape policy—often in ways aligned with the worldview of their financial backers.”

In short, Georgetown’s Muslim problem is a direct result of being bought by those whose values are about as anti-American and anti-Catholic as gets.

On the previous page, we concluded that Georgetown’s astounding tolerance for anti-Semitism is not unrelated to its being greased by Qatar to the tune of over $1 billion. Yet this Jesuit school publicly proclaims a great interest in human rights and social justice. Qatar’s record on this score, however, is atrocious.

Here is what Georgetown has to say about human rights.

Georgetown Law Human Rights Institute is the “focal point of human rights at Georgetown Law.” It aims to be the “premier training academy for the next generation of human rights advocates.” Law students can also avail themselves of the university’s Human Rights Associates Program. Students are introduced to “the breadth of human rights law and practice,” allowing them to “navigate academic and career choices.”

There is a special organization, The O’Neill Institute, Center for Health and Human Rights, that “focuses on the nexus of health and national and international human rights law.” There is also an annual meeting, the Samuel Dash Human Rights Conference, that “brings together leading figures in the human rights field to discuss and debate a current human rights issue.”

A look at the Georgetown course catalog reveals 39 classes on human rights for the fall semester of 2025. In addition, there are four student organizations dedicated to human rights. Moreover, Georgetown University Press lists 57 books on the subject of human rights.

Here is what Georgetown has to say about social justice.

The Center for Social Justice Research has many goals, among them being the development of “curricular offerings that incorporate social justice issues.” The Pathways to Social Justice Curriculum is one of the vehicles that Georgetown uses to accomplish this end. The Alternative Breaks Program is designed to “foster intersectional solidarity and inspire lasting commitment to service and social justice.”

The Education and Social Justice Project is a fellowship that allows students “to conduct in-depth examinations of innovative educational initiatives.” The Center for Social Justice Faculty Fellows Program is an inter-departmental effort that seeks to highlight the work of faculty in this area.

There are 47 student organizations dedicated to social justice. Annually, there is a Social Justice Send-Off commencement event that “celebrates students who have engaged in social justice work and public/community service work.”

The list of human rights and social justice initiatives is striking. Just as striking are the human rights and social justice abuses currently being practiced by one of its most generous donors, the nation of Qatar.

The U.S. Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in 2023 has much to say about Qatar. Among the list of human rights abuses are the following:

• Arbitrary arrest
• Political prisoners
• Serious restrictions on free expression
• Substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association

The report notes that “Citizens did not regularly discuss sensitive political and religious matters in public fora, but they did so in private and carefully on social media. The law prohibited criticism of the emir.”

The government has the right to censor the media and “close outlets and confiscate assets of a publication.” Conveniently, all print media are owned by the ruling family or those closely associated with it.

The State Department’s 2023 Report on International Religious Freedom says that “Conversion to another religion from Islam is defined as apostasy and is illegal.” Also, those found guilty of offending or misinterpreting the Quran can be imprisoned for up to seven years. This includes insulting the prophets or committing blasphemy against Islam.

Catholics, and other non-Muslims, are prohibited from “displaying religious symbols, which includes banning Christian congregations from advertising religious services or placing crosses outdoors where they are visible to the public.” All religious publications are subject to censorship.

Such is the state of human rights in Qatar today.

Apparently, none of this matters to Georgetown. It talks a great game when it comes to human rights and social justice, but it is deadly silent on these abuses as practiced by one of its most prominent benefactors. How a university that professes to be Catholic—with a big emphasis on its Jesuit roots—can live with itself under these circumstances is disturbing, to say the least.

It is also disturbing to note that while Georgetown has pledged to raise $100 million for the descendants of the 272 enslaved people that the Jesuits sold in 1838, it has had no problem employing Jonathan Brown, the anti-Semitic professor who has justified slavery and rape (as long as the offenders are Muslims).

Georgetown’s Center for the Study of Slavery and its Legacies should investigate this phenomenon. It is a classic case of what psychologist Leon Festinger called “cognitive dissonance,” the uncomfortable condition that exists when experiencing two internal inconsistencies.

Also, the alumni need to take the lead in resolving this situation. The governing boards, the administration and the faculty have shown themselves to be morally delinquent and guilty of rank duplicity.

We’ve all dealt with scolds, highly judgmental finger-pointing people  who are quick to call us out for some alleged moral outrage. They are annoying, to put it mildly. The corrective, however, is not to become the polar opposite, which is to be non-judgmental about practically everything. The extremes, as usual, are no good.

It is not the scolds who are the big problem these days; it’s the non-judgmental types. Their smugness is sickening—they like to lord over us as the high priests of tolerance and open-mindedness. More important, there are times when to withhold judgment is not only not virtuous, it is morally offensive. To cite one example: If we can’t summon the moral courage to unequivocally denounce genocide, then we need to reset our moral compass.

Artificial intelligence tells us that “Being non-judgmental fosters understanding and improves relationships.” To be sure, this is true in some cases. But if the issue is incest, then fostering an understanding  may actually impede our ability to condemn. More to the point, it is absurd to think that being non-judgmental about mother-son sexual relationships is virtuous.

Other internet sites imply that making judgments suggests a character disorder.  “Why do you feel the need to judge? It’s time for some introspection. You need to be honest with yourself and unwrap why you feel the need to judge other people.”

So when parents tell their children it’s time to retire their phone, or turn off the TV, and start doing their homework, they need to look in the mirror and ask themselves why they feel the need to judge? The truth is parents who are not judgmental about such things are delinquent in their duties. And by the way, is not the decision not to judge a judgment call?

In some Catholic quarters, it is fashionable to cite Pope Francis as a beacon of non-judgmentalism. After all, they say, it was he who famously said about homosexuality, “Who am I to judge?”

Wrong. He never said that about homosexuality. Homosexuality is  conduct, a behavior proscribed by the Bible and the Catholic Catechism, and the pope never said it wasn’t sinful. But being a homosexual is morally neutral—it is no more sinful than being a heterosexual.

Pope Francis was referring to the status of someone who is a homosexual, and in this particular case it was about a priest who had been accused, but not found guilty, of a sexual offense. To his credit, the pope chose his words very carefully. What he said before, and after, those five words, “Who am I to judge?”, matters greatly.

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge him?” (My italics.) The qualifiers, and the object of his remark, provide a very different picture than the one falsely promoted by “non-judgmental” savants.

When non-judgmentalism becomes a crusade, it carries the seeds of moral relativism, one of the most destructive, indeed lethal, ideas in history.

In his classic book, Modern Times, Paul Johnson, the great English Catholic historian, argued that the astounding violence and cultural corruption that marked the twentieth century was a function of moral relativism, the notion that there are no moral absolutes, just opinions. It was after World War I, he said, that moral relativism triumphed. Notions of right and wrong were no longer seen as a cultural expression, grounded in our Judeo-Christian heritage. No, they were merely a matter of whim.

Hitler said, “There is no such thing as truth, either in the moral or in the scientific sense.” He made good on his ethics. He killed with abandon, never flinching from his convictions. In this regard, he was following the wisdom of Nietzsche, who opined, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” Once truth and facts are seen as mere opinions, it allows some to think that putting Jews into ovens is the right thing to do. After all, “Who are we to judge”?

The Institute for Historical Review (IHR) is a contemporary example of this view. It spends most of its time trying to belittle, if not deny, the Holocaust. It maintains that this is not an accurate account, but anyone who has read its work knows better. “The IHR does not ‘deny’ the Holocaust. Indeed, the IHR as such has no ‘position’ on any specific event or chapter of history, except to promote greater awareness and understanding, and to encourage more objective investigation.”

Why lie? Why the need to put the word deny in quotes, as if it were debatable? Similarly, any organization that takes no position on the Holocaust means it would not object if another Hitler emerged with his Final Solution plans.

The intentional killing of millions of innocent people is morally abhorrent. If that is being judgmental, so be it. There are times when being non-judgmental makes sense, but as a universal rule it is morally debased. Even deadly.

Former Sen. Joe Manchin said he left the Democratic Party last year because he couldn’t “stomach” what he said was “the socialist trend” in the Party. “It’s not the Democratic Party that I knew or that I was a part of for many, many years.”

The West Virginia senator specifically mentioned Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani—all socialists—as a reason why he is so negative.

He warned that “if the national Democratic Party doesn’t get back to more of a center or center left, there won’t be a party they’re going to recognize at all.”