You’re invited to join other Young Professionals at a Summer Mixer on May 23rd to support Chris Wight in his campaign for Congress.

Details:

Where? Met Club, 122 E. 83rd St (between Lexington and Park)
When? Wednesday May 23, 6:30 PM
Contribution? $50

You can buy your tickets in advance here.

Chris’ Bio:

Chris has spent the last 14 years helping the world’s largest investment banks cut costs, manage operations, build client relationships, and increase profitability.

Most recently, his efforts to build strong internal governance with his employer’s top-tier clients has helped to strengthen the firm’s business and brand. He is highly results-oriented and focuses on specific action plans with measurable and impactful change.

Prior to his current position, Chris spent five years working for Deutsche Bank where he managed an operations team. He completed large cost-cutting initiatives, tightened internal controls, and performed audits.

Before Deutsche, he spent four years as an analyst with Goldman Sachs where he studied equity markets on a buy-side trading desk and supported fixed-income trading and operations.

Chris grew up in Toledo, Ohio attending public schools where his mother was a fourth-grade teacher. His father was a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force and served during the Korean War.

After receiving a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from The Ohio State University in 1997, Chris moved to New York City.

He lives on Manhattan’s Upper East Side and has been a resident of the 14th congressional district for ten years.

Mr. Stephens:

As a relatively recent college graduate (2007), I was disappointed to read your blanket attack on the Class of 2012.  While your anecdotes may serve as evidence to confirm the suspicions of those who feel a palpable decline in educational standards, the tone and presumptuous condescension of your missive were hardly constructive.

It’s true that many of my peers are woefully unfamiliar with history.  In fact, this April a mixture of dismay and horror spread across Twitter as several young people admitted ignorance of the historical Titanic.  Comical and despairing, the event was emblematic of a disturbing trend among educational institutions; namely, they seem to have lost their staid insistence on academic rigor.  Furthermore, I agree: it is imperative for the public good that journalists are intimately familiar with the topics about which they presume to opine.  Memorization of historical facts, dates, and actors is undoubtedly a prerequisite for informed and judicious journalism.  No further proof of this assertion is needed than to pick up a typical periodical on the newsstand and notice the glaring holes in the author’s analysis.  Whether the topic is Middle Eastern politics, economic policy and history, or warfare, the paucity of erudition in journalistic circles is all too apparent to a reader who is even casually familiar with the topic at hand.

Rather than blame today’s students for their ignorance, however, you may have asked what generation of professors developed their curricula.  A person born in 1990 can hardly be held responsible for the decisions made by Democrat Presidents and Congresses of the 1930s and 1960s to create financially impossible entitlement programs.  It was Richard Nixon in the 1970s who cobbled together the EPA from disparate regulatory boards, creating the precedent for so many of Obama’s attacks on private property today.  Going back further, it was John Dewey and legions of subsequent progressives who successfully supplanted the tenets of a classical education with what could be aptly described as  today’s “therapeutic” educational system.

Recognizing as you do the misleading character of an Ivy League credentials, prudence and genuine concern for prosperity dictates not public scorn, but tutelage.  I have been critical of my generation’s overwhelmingly blind support of Obama and their lack of sound political thinking.  But my intentions when engaging them in conversation are to spark their curiosity, encourage them to read more, and discover a world of learning that will provide them a lifetime of genuine insight and vocational aptitude.  A funny thing happens when you stop the putdowns and provide incentive to learn: people do.

Yet your article goes beyond mere unproductivity.  It borders on vindictive, even anti-American.  Americans are, on the whole, better educated than Ireland, France, Spain, and India.  We are more economically productive.  As you (wittingly or unwittingly) insinuate, our young people fight bravely on foreign battlefields in greater numbers than any other country’s youth.  There have been no massively destructive riots in the United States as a result of the Great Recession, OWS included.  The same cannot be said for the U.K., France, Greece – or, for that matter, the United States in the 1960s.  Generation X-er politicians meanwhile (that’s your generation, Mr. Stephens), have been complicit with Baby Boomers in expanding the size and scope of the Federal government.  Still today they have not thought it imperative to stop the spending.  As a 39 year-old father of three, I find it a perplexing priority to lambaste a particular crop of students who are, as you say, living with their parents.  Surely the Journal’s august pages could be more effectively utilized to help thwart a global financial collapse.  Or was the article merely Mr. Stephens’ own puffery?  “Advertisements for Bret?”  I noticed it achieved #1 most read on wsj.com.  Precious little “emotional restraint” from you, but plenty of attention.

The root of the English word educate comes from the Latin educatus, which means to “bring up.”  Socrates did not ask questions to humiliate and belittle his interlocutors, but to raise their awareness.  It is the duty of those who are better informed, who have spent time cultivating their own minds, to encumber with facts those in society who have been derelict in this task.  Snotty remarks aimed at millions of young people do nothing to but breed resentment and promote further political disaffection.  And no, hiding behind admiration for a girl who is braver than you does not make this OK.

Sincerely,

William Palumbo
New York, NY

What WOULD Mitt Romney have done with the Osama Bin Laden raid? This of course isn’t helped by Mitt’s own varied nuances on the subject, but Obama’s strongest claim thus far is rooted in the possibility that his Republican opponent may have, could have acted differently. This mentality allows him to seamlessly take credit for many other things as well. There might have been unthinkable death, destruction and atrocity in Libya’s near future through by averting Congressional approval for military action, he prevented it. The lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancies in the U.S., must be because of Obamacare. They must be because we have no proof of what would have happened differently had we not adopted the president’s plan.

By inflating and creating problems that may have existed without the course of action taken by the president, he has, by his own account, prevented countless disasters and a vast number problems that don’t actually exist. This allows him to hide the negative results of the actions he took, and run on the hypotheticals of false choices. This is, of course, not an entirely new course of action for presidents who by all objective observation have failed their country; but the extent to which this president demonizes his opposition for actions that were taken on under his own administration is truly unprecedented.

So let’s get back to the messaging part. Focusing your message only on what could have happened differently under a different course of action can arguably be done in any situation to make the alternative seem worse.  But, the hypothetical scenario can’t be proven because it didn’t really happen (that’s why it’s an alternative).  Is a trillion dollar stimulus really that bad when the alternative could have been unimaginable economic catastrophe that sent the nation into unforeseen economic depression?  Who’s to say but, of course, Obama.

This mentality attempts to avert objective comparison and use a hypothetical distortion of causal relationships to prove a point that is essentially not provable. Our current president champions this thinking, but it is particularly noticeable among all socialists/democrats/communists.  (Don’t kid yourself: they want the same things just at different speeds).

Republicanism is grounded in common sense; Democratic philosophy is grounded in ideology. It’s about what is vs. what should be… or what could be… or what might be different if this happened… That is the choice that we have in 2012.

In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.

If I may confess a little ignorance here… I was under the impression that Obama had actually killed Osama bin Laden himself.  With all the fanfare promoted by the White House, I’m sure you understand.

Team Romney take note: your opponent is delusional, desperate, and will say anything.

h/t Ulsterman:

http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/05/01/blockbuster-navy-seal-says-obama-did-not-make-the-bin-laden-call/

Is it just a coincidence that under president Obama’s watch, as 147,000 new employees have taken their seats thanks to the American taxpayer, scandals within his administration have run rampant? Solyndra, LightSquared, the GSA, the TSA, the Secret Service… the list goes on and on.

I think it’s time we all remind ourselves how incredibly contradictory and destructive left-wing philosophy truly is. We have to draw the moral convictions of the kind of society that we want to live in: one that demands sacrifice from men of ability in the name of “fairness,” or one that rewards productivity and ability in recognition of personal and societal advancement.

Date: Sunday, April 15, 2012
Time: 1:00pm
Location: The National Debt Clock, outside of 110 West 44th Street (between 6th and 7th Avenues)

Refreshments will be served.  More information can be found here.

This will be a powerful reminder of the failure and legacy of Carolyn Maloney’s tenure and the tenuous state our nation finds itself in given a $16 trillion (and growing!) national debt.

For more information about candidate Chris Wight, to donate to his campaign, or to join as a volunteer, visit his website at www.cw2012.com.

Having said that, I still have greatly enjoyed following his 2012 presidential campaign.  Speaker Gingrich is obviously a very intelligent individual and possesses great debating skills.  His rebukes of the national media were spot on.  And, finally, whether you like him or not or whether if you agree with him or not, he clearly has a lot of interesting things to say.

As someone who was a boy during the Apollo years, one of his proposals that I found most interesting involved building a permanent base on the moon.  If you recall, when he made that proposal, he was universally mocked.  His opponents and the media called it a “hair-brained scheme” with no chance or basis in reality given our current economic condition.

It’s hard to believe that this reaction came from the same America that tamed the West, won the Cold War and put a man on the moon.  Sure, times are tough but that does not mean we can’t still have big dreams and goals.  Speaker Gingrich proposed bringing private enterprise into the mix, thereby truly opening up space to commercialization and privatization.  We used to call proposals like that “visionary” and “challenges worthy of our efforts” not hair-brained schemes and dumb ideas.  Many of our greatest undertakings were accomplished during tough economic times, particularly when we opened up the challenge to the private sector.  Perhaps Speaker Gingrich does not have the eloquence that President Kennedy had in the 1960s when he challenged us to put a man on the moon (he certainly doesn’t have the support and adoration of the media that Kennedy had) but he has a vision and has called on Americans to think outside the box and rethink our ideas about the exploitation of space.  Our nation needs to encourage, not discourage, such forward thinkers.  It is time again that we realize that the biggest obstacle to our ability to achieve great things comes not from economic statistics but from the naysayers and doubters among us who prefer to maintain the status quo.  If he contributed anything to the debate in this cycle, Speaker Gingrich reminded us that if we are to achieve great things, then we need to dream and imagine a nation not bound by the mundane constraints that will always exist.  In short, Speaker Gingrich reminded us that, as Americans, we should always remember to think big.

Joseph Mendola, a native New Yorker and a graduate of Columbia Law School was the 2009 Republican candidate for NYC Comptroller.  He received nearly 200,000 votes, the most of any Republican running for office in NYC in 2009 except for Michael Bloomberg.  Joe is licensed to practice law in New York, New Jersey and Florida. He works in the securities industry and holds 10 different FINRA sponsored licenses.  A direct survivor of 9/11, Joe lives with his 2 young children in one of America’s greatest liberal bastions, New York City’s Greenwich Village.  He may be reached at jmendolanyc@aol.com.

I guess that you would have to be living under a rock not to know that this week the Supreme Court is hearing arguments about the constitutionality of the mandate provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or, as it is more commonly known, Obamacare).  The act requires (i.e. forces or mandates) people to buy health insurance or be subject to a monetary penalty.

When all the hyperbole and posturing is set aside, the essential question before the Court is: does the federal government have the power to force people to buy a particular product (in this case health insurance).  Let’s stop for a moment and consider that.  If the federal government has the power to force citizens to buy health insurance, what else do they have the power to force us to do?  If the Court holds that the mandate is constitutional, would there be anything left that the federal government does not have the power to force us to do?  It stands to reason that if they can force us to buy something, then they would also be able to force us not to buy something.  One can only imagine how those who oppose the Second Amendment could use that argument to further restrict our right to bear arms.

The irony here is that, when proposed, the mandate provision was seen as the “least intrusive” and “most conservative” way to achieve universal health care.  The theory was that the alternative, the government actually providing the insurance (i.e. the “public option”) would create a socialistic type government bureaucracy that would take us way beyond the welfare state.  Mandating or forcing people to buy health insurance was more acceptable, according to this logic, because what the government was essentially doing was “forcing” people to take responsibility for themselves.  And after all, this line of thought concludes, what could be more appealing to conservatives than people taking responsibility for themselves?

No question that the public option would have blown the already dangerously high federal deficit through the roof.  It would have destroyed any chance at achieving the fiscal discipline that we so desperately need.  But, come on!  We Republicans believe in and champion personal responsibility because it leads to optimal innovation and efficiency.  To the contrary, we believe that one does not take responsibility for himself if he is being forced to do so.  Americans do not need the government to tell us to be responsible.  Responsible Americans built this country without the need for mandates.  It’s time we again realize that responsibility comes from within and cannot be imposed by a government bureaucracy.  If we let this “most conservative” approach to universal health care stand, we will surrender the last bits of freedom and dignity we have left, i.e., the freedom and dignity to be responsible for ourselves and to determine our own destinies.

Joseph Mendola, a native New Yorker and a graduate of Columbia Law School was the 2009 Republican candidate for NYC Comptroller.  He received nearly 200,000 votes, the most of any Republican running for office in NYC in 2009 except for Michael Bloomberg.  Joe is licensed to practice law in New York, New Jersey and Florida. He works in the securities industry and holds 10 different FINRA sponsored licenses.  A direct survivor of 9/11, Joe lives with his 2 young children in one of America’s greatest liberal bastions, New York City’s Greenwich Village.  He may be reached at jmendolanyc@aol.com.

Benjamin Franklin, 1787

A little while ago now, in the two years immediately following the coronation of Shah Obama, I remember observing the Glenn Beck agenda from a distance.  Although I could never count myself among his dedicated fans, his passion and intellectual curiosity intrigued me; and, so until he was unceremoniously disavowed by News Corp like a hound that could no longer hunt, I tracked the broad arch of his unique brand of journo-evangelism mainly through second hand sources.  It seemed he was rapidly evolving from a political neophyte to a serious student of history and political philosophy, and doing so in an unusually public manner.  Sometimes I blushed for him.  (All conservatives go a little too libertarian for a period, wanting to legalize everything from pot to nuclear weapons, but it’s a rare spectacle to see this transformation in front of an audience of millions.)

One evening, after a long and satisfying discussion with an honest and intelligent friend, I found myself alone ruminating on our political crisis.  The Supreme Council (we called it “Congress” in keeping with our American tradition) had just passed Obamacare and the doublethink inspired “Stimulus,” and had “reformed” our financial institutions through regulatory manacles and muzzles.  As a student of economics, I knew the arguments against such meddling – their divine inspiration aside – were logically resolved through the reflection of 18^th and 19^th century economists, “worldly philosophers.”  I knew that centralization of daily minutiae leads to poverty, despair, and economic decline.  Bastiat, a witness to early French socialism, wrote the proofs long ago, elegantly and with disarming rhetoric.  All that was required was for Republicans to dust off the old books, imbibe their wisdom, update the names and places, and deliver rousing homilies to the citizenry; to repackage conservatism, in the classic Burkean manner.  Yet they didn’t.

1. I got to thinking more about this conundrum, and granted myself the obvious as starting assumptions.  Economic logic was faultless and depended ever-so-humbly on self-evident truths.  I knew this to be true and so could anybody else who had the courage to follow their convictions.
2. Republican leaders at least nominally believed in freedom, and its brainchild, the market, which births not only material abundance but sturdy morals.
3. The American people, steeped in a 400 year old culture of independence and self-reliance, instinctively understood that private citizens and not government made America the beautiful country she is and has been.
4. Still, Barack Obama ably hypnotized the electorate and was busy dismantling the work of generations with every new industrial strength fatwa.

These were the facts, the reality.  Regardless of personal dogma, this much had to be admitted by fair observers.  If plain truth were failing to persuade, what then was the malady that had so corrupted national politics?

* * *

I have a confession.  I was raised and confirmed in the Catholic Church, but for months, sometimes years at a time, never attended mass.  Spiritual life in my teenage years mattered about as much as saving for retirement.  Although never an atheist or agnostic, I was a functional agnostic who occasionally prayed… mostly to relieve anxiety.  Religion of your youth, however, is something that, like language, never goes away and will unconsciously mold your thoughts despite neglect.

It was that night when, in quiet contemplation, I first understood the power and meaning of spirit.  The character of the American people had changed, at least enough to elect a Marxist in a once free republic.  Shah Obama’s election was no less significant a moment than when Rome rejected her civic virtues and deteriorated into a land where bread and circuses entertained blissfully ignorant and mean citizens.  In the early years of the Roman decline, the people could have reverted and saved the Empire.  But history records their choice to embrace a new creed and doom Europe to a thousand years of darkness.

Well, my memory leaves something to be desired, but I believe it was sometime after Beck began to pull back the curtain on Democrat fundraising and associated non-profits, and before his swan song of outing Soros.  I remember it was a day or two after I had come to the same conclusion.  America, to persevere, needed a spiritual revival.  Needed religion.  Needed conviction and steely resolve to quash ideological evil that is socialism/collectivism/utopianism –whatever – and that had planted itself in the seat of government.  Nihilism would no longer do.  Shortly thereafter Beck held a rally in the Capitol to preach just that.

* * *

People get uncomfortable when political writing turns religious.  For obvious reasons, many people associate sanctimonious politicians with an older and crueler order.  Countless civilizations spanning history have languished under stultifying religious rule of one stripe or another.  America remained the peculiar exception.  The land of the free was established by emigrants fleeing religious persecution, and grew mightily from their labor.  The first generation of Americans wrote the first Amendment, guaranteeing that no monolithic central government would ever impose a theology on the people.  Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Jews, Moslems, for that matter atheists – all worship freely (or don’t) in our blessed land.

Yet operating in parallel with each faith is a common civic religion.  It permeates our spirit and binds us like any other creed shared by a people.  It was expressed beautifully in the Declaration of Independence, in the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these Rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Behold the uniquely American gospel of tolerance and earthy peace.

From these words grew a nation dedicated to individuals, not classes, factions, or sects.  A decade Jefferson’s masterpiece inspired the Constitution, the oldest and most successful political compact in the long annals of failed states.  By diffusing power across a meticulously crafted co-equal government of three branches, the Framers harnessed the natural inclination of ambitious men to seize undue authority, and did their best to see that it was stymied by natural jealousies of others.  While the national government was in competition within itself, it was also distinct in responsibility from powerful State governments.  Distrustful of pure democracy for its tendency to devolve into mobocracy (and finally violence), the Framers conceived a dynamic and vast representative republic that vested enumerated powers on the federal level.  In the People, not the President, Congress, or Courts, they reserved ultimate sovereignty.  The idea was stunningly simple: if government, while bounded by a strict rule of law, maintains good order and provides protection, then society will tend to and improve itself.  America’s glory can be attributed to the grand idea that government should primarily check unsocial behavior, so that humanity’s natural social tendencies may give rise to spontaneous splendor.

* * *

There is nothing menacing in a civic religion whose decalogue sanctifies individual liberty.  It is the antithesis of state religion, which demands obedience and subservience of conscience.  In America today, nothing typifies a modern state religion quite like Obamacare.

Ah yes, universal healthcare.  What could be more humanitarian?  If a parallel could be drawn today with the medieval practice of selling indulgences, it would be the mindless and unequivocal support for universal healthcare.  A staple of liberalism in Europe and Canada, the self-righteous moralize from high that only in America are we selfish enough not to provide medical services to all citizens (and non-citizens, but that’s a whole other matter).  To disagree with the proponents of socialized medicine is to fall from grace.  Free speech?  Meh, how 1700s.  Free healthcare, now that’s caring!  Now that’s license!

Repeat:
We believe in one, universal healthcare system.
We acknowledge one provider and the centralization of power.
We look to Obama for coverage,
and the Hope of timely treatment to come.

Like other state religions, Obamacare requires blind faith.  Supply and demand dictate that as demand grows and supply remains constant, so rises price.  But as Lazarus rose from the dead, after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was made flesh, natural law no longer applies.  Now coverage can be expanded to millions (higher demand), hospitals can close (lower supply), and still prices will fall, so help us Obama.  Avarice on the part of doctors and insurance companies is no more.  The new Priestess, Secretary Sebelius, has taken a veritable vow of poverty.  The cathedral of HHS is, believe me, not concerned with profits.  They are only concerned with cutting costs – their costs, that is.  And their costs just happen to be our surgeries, therapies, and intensive care treatment.  We suffer nobly thanks to comparative effectiveness research; we are anointed when sick with euthanasia.  Freedom of conscience is protected by the individual mandate.  If you can’t see the light, write your Congressman and request your very own copy of this thousand page Sermon on the Hill.

As good as it all sounds, come Judgment Day, Obamacare’s ten million commandments preclude non-state religions entrance to Heaven.  And, unlike Revelations, this prophecy has already been fulfilled.  The Vatican was recently surprised to learn that Obamacare meant subsidizing birth control and abortions.   Rabbis, ministers, and imams quickly realized that their First Amendment too was scheduled for serious revision.  Not since the civil rights movement have religious communities been so unified against government policy.  Control of healthcare, they said, meant control of the body.  But few at the time predicted it also meant control over the Body.

* * *

As you may know it’s the Lenten season.  These are the 40 days prior to Easter (excluding Sundays), during which Christians are called closer to their God and Savior.  It is customary to “give something up” as sacrifice for Lent, but this year I decided instead to do something – namely, attend Church on Sundays.  (Yes, I know, this should be perfunctory.)

When at Church, I pray for my family, friends, and neighbors to be well, to act with virtue, and to take things as they come with grace and resolve.  If a loved one is acting foolishly, it’s my wish that they willfully change their habits.  I suspect these are common sentiments among supplicants.  I’ll also say what I do not pray for.  I do not, will not, and never have prayed for my Congressman, Senator, Governor, or President to forcibly make my family, friends, or neighbors change their behavior.  I suspect that such prayers are rare; for to do so is to invert good and evil, and deny another of his conscience.

The future of Obamacare, a secular religion with a sordid history and a future that portends grave bureaucratic sin, now sits with the 9 men and women of U.S. Supreme Court.  Reports indicate that at least five of nine Justices seem hostile and given to driving the Act out of the Federal Registrar with whips.  Let’s hope so.  If narrowly saved from Obamacare we should count our blessings.  But the sobering fact remains that it was an American Congress and American President, both duly elected, which enacted this monstrous law.

There is reason for hope.  Tea Party groups have reawakened the People and sparked in them a curiousness of the Founding.  Every day, more ordinary Americans familiarize themselves with Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison.  Providence has provided a time machine across the Atlantic, and we can see decrepit results of socialism writ large.  Though our institutions are badly battered, the safeguards of liberty – free speech, freedom of association, and free elections – ensure that if we are willing to take brave political action, our fate is not yet sealed.  Now, not tomorrow, is our time to get religion.

Note to hecklers: You! STOP right there!  I don’t believe Obama is a Muslim any more than I believe he is a Jew.  For all I know, he could be a Scientologist, a Zoroastrian, a Shaker.  Remember satire?  P.S., if you want to be an atheist, go right ahead.

One thing – please don’t write me with hysterical complaints pleading the need for “civil” language and political correctness.  Political correctness is largely responsible for the Marxist residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and once in a while it is refreshing to read free speech uncensored… this is a private citizen, so deal with it.

…did you hear the violent encounters overnight in Brooklyn, and Oakland? Surgically precise, and a show of military coordination.  Do you still think they are just a loosely knit group of clueless druggies and well meaning “students” fighting for the social injustice perpetrated by society?  I hope I’m wrong but I see this becoming more prevalent as the election gets closer ; and god help us when the first casualties begin to appear and reasons are manipulated for political advantage ; I have no doubt the orchestration of the “American Spring” will advance with double time progression with exact timing provided between each individual event so the public has the time to digest the “reason” why this is inevitable because of evil banking practices while ignoring the fact that the financial institutions were by law forced into these actions by the government.  repeal of the Glass-Stiegel act of 1934 by the Clinton administration in 1994; as the election year goes forward there will be more of these incidents occurring with such casual frequency that the public will pay no attention, as more “regulations” are put in place for the good of the people; each taking freedom with the eyedropper of political correctness.

Can the elections become compromised as a result o.w.s ? is postponement that unlikely? the dangerous ‘social unrest’ will be the reasoning for amended constitutional interpretations given the desperation to justify the deployment of martial law … with the protection of the “masses” from the radical, religious, and economic persecution, brilliantly orchestrated as the ultimate endgame. While a clueless public watches reality shows and makes decisions based on the hysterics du jour … dictated by any third world nation … after which this administration has modeled itself … so criticism of their policies becomes politically incorrect, and shows the caring nature from this regime and the callous disregard of the opposition who still believe this country is worth saving …

The continued repetition of manufactured distractions worked for Hitler with the Jews.  It now works for Obama with the rich … and anybody independent of the government’s teet.  Only time will tell.

think i’ll start a blog….only thing is that may become illegal too.