by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
March 6, 2011

In the summer of 2008 as McCain and Obama were in the midst of their campaigns to capture the presidency, a series of events dramatically changed the focus of the campaign from Iraq to the economy. From that point on, Obama took the lead and eventually won the presidency. 

Now, a full two years later, the Pentagon has issued a reporton the series of events that led to the 2008 economic crash. Bill Gertz writes in the Washington Times:

Evidence outlined in a Pentagon contractor report suggests that financial subversion carried out by unknown parties, such as terrorists or hostile nations, contributed to the 2008 economic crash by covertly using vulnerabilities in the U.S. financial system

Consider: The economic house of cards started tumbling on June 26, 2008, when Senator Chuck Schumer leaked a memo questioning the solvency of IndyMac bank. This memo precipitated a run on IndyMac which led to its failure. Federal regulators pointedly cited U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in explaining the bank’s failure. “The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York.”

As I wrote in February of 2009, this event, coupled with the Lehman Brothers collapse in September, marked the beginning of the current economic meltdown and provided the environment that enabled Barack Obama to focus on the economy instead of his position on Iraq – and, not incidentally, resulted in his election as President.

July 12, 2008: The federal government takes control of the $32 billion IndyMac Bank. *

* Six months later, Jan 2, 2009, a seven-member group of investors agreed to buy the remnants of failed lender IndyMac for $13.9 billion. Other investors included a fund controlled by billionaire George Soros’ Fund Management. 

Sept. 6, 2008: Fannie Mae begins its downward spiral, which will end with a crash in November. This crash was avoidable, as the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were identified in June of 2006, when 15 Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee introduced legislation to address the problem. Democrats, led by Barney Frank, killed the reform efforts.

Sept. 15, 2008: Obama and McCain are virtually tied in their race for the presidency. Out of no-where, in the space of less than 2 hours, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the U.S. to the tune of $550 billion. Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania said that if authorities had not closed the banks, $5.5 trillion would have been withdrawn from US banks, which would have caused the collapse of the US  within 24 hours.

The markets reacted to Obama’s proposal to bail-out mortgages and Senator Christopher Dodd’s talk of nationalizing banks by reaching 11-year lows.

Enter George Soros. The infamous one-worlder, billionaire George Soros adds his voice to the media doomsayers by opining that the world financial system has effectively disintegrated, adding that there is yet no prospect of near-term resolution to the crisis.* 

Suspects include financial enemies in Middle Eastern states, Islamic terrorists, hostile members of the Chinese military, or government and organized crime groups in Russia, Venezuela or Iran. Chinese military officials.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com

Originally posted 2010-06-01 21:31:16. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
June 1, 2010

The contuing love affair the left has with Barack Obama bears a striking similarity to my short-lived marriage with my now ex-husband.
 
Like Obama, my ex-husband, who I’ll call Sam (not his real name) was a blank slate upon whom I projected all my hopes and dreams. Only in hind-sight did I realize that my perceptions and expectations were a product of my own imagination, with little connection to reality.
 
Obama burst onto the national scene out of no-where. Millions of Americans naturally assumed that a man running for the highest office in the land had undergone the necessary vetting and was of high character. Since Obama had the official approval of the media, he was accepted, without question or investigation, by fully half of all Americans.
 
Likewise, I accepted without question that Sam was worthy of both my trust and respect. Being a judge, I assumed Sam had been vetted and been found worthy. He had society’s approval, having been given the right to add "The Honorable" to his name. I accepted Sam’s label as fact, without question. And counted myself lucky to have found a man of such high character.
 
During the course of our marriage, I was loath to acknowledge any facts that were at variance with the image I constructed of Sam. (Just as millions of Obama voters still do.) I had invested my hopes and dreams, trust and respect into this image, and any facts to the contrary were ignored. Even when Sam started showing signs of ‘The God Complex’ and began abusing the trust of his judicial office.
 
On one occasion, Sam awarded $500,000 in a case that he had previously informed me was worth only $50,000. When I asked him why, Sam said, "Because L… asked me to." L… was the plaintiff’s lawyer and Sam’s good buddy.
 
On one level, I knew Sam was wrong to do this. I was then faced with a choice of having my dreams shattered by an ugly reality or continuing to fool myself. I opted to compartmentalize. As in, ignore any evidence that didn’t accord with my earlier perceptions.
 
I had made Sam into a white knight, a hero, a man I could respect. To maintain that illusion, I routinely started ignoring the increasing indicators that maybe I had been wrong to do so. I ignored the growing disconnect between his words and his actions. I just couldn’t bear to have my dreams shattered. Much like the many devotees of Obama whose carefully constructed image of Obama would be shattered if they acknowledged Obama’s many imperfections, that are just now becoming apparent.

Very few men remain unchanged when given power over other men. When everyone laughs at all your jokes, pretty soon you convince yourself you are pretty funny. When surrounded 24/7 by yes men and the trappings of power, its only natural to start thinking you’re superior to others, that the rules that govern ordinary men don’t apply. This happened to Sam, just as it is happening to Obama.
 
It is true that power corrupts most men. It was also true, in my case, that Sam’s increased arrogance and his flouting of the law became secondary to my need to maintain my illusions. To admit that Sam was a mere mortal, a flawed mortal, was unthinkable. What did that say about me? That would mean that I was pretty stupid. That would mean acknowledging my naivete and gullibility. I chose not to do that.
 
After three years of marriage, Sam tired of me. With 20/20 hindsight, I realize he did me a favor, but that didn’t lessen the pain of divorce. It took another five years before I was able to admit and accept that Sam had never been worthy of my respect. I realized that my love for him was based more on my need to see the world the way I envisioned it instead of the way it really was.
 
I only hope it doesn’t take that long for Obama’s supporters to realize the same thing. Granted, reality is painful, but in today’s dangerous world, illusions are a luxury America can ill afford.
 

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Article published with the author’s permission

Recommended related reading:

Alter Regrets ‘We Didn’t Show Up’ for Obama
G.O.P. Sees a Way to Revive Healthcare Debate
Obama’s Approval Drops, Despite Gestures
Obama, the Thin-Skinned President
MARK TAPSCOTT: Will journalists wake up in time?

Originally posted 2009-09-27 21:11:58. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

I was fortunate recently to receive a gift from a close friend of a marvelous work of biographical documentary by Lou Cannon, an authority on the life and work of Ronald Reagan. The illustrated portfolio of Reagan’s contributions to America is truly an inspiring piece of literature, as well as a powerful historical reference of his accomplishments. The accompanying audio CD containing excerpts of his speeches, including the famous “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Berlin speech of June 12, 1987, is a stimulating flashback to the times when American strength and influence was able to change the world in dramatic ways.

Moving page by page through this exceptional work one finds it difficult to not return in one’s mind to the culminating years of the 20^th century and remind oneself of the edge of the precipice on which the world stood in those days. The escalating arms race between the USSR and the United States was truly the one event in world history which, had it not been ultimately conquered, might have lead to our annihilation; the end of our civilization and as a human race.

Our options were limited but remarkably clear. Succumbing to the influence of Soviet domination would have changed, and indeed destroyed our way of life as a free society. This was not an acceptable option. Movements to appease the Soviet aggressor were growing, emanating both from within the US and many countries with liberal-leaning democracies. Cries of “better dead than read,” the rallying cry of anti-communist forces within the US were being elsewhere reversed, and “better red than dead” was increasingly heard around the world. It seemed as if the US was the last and only obstacle to the Soviet’s imposition of their social and economic order on the world. Yet still many around the world naively believed that, if only left alone and not challenged, the Soviet Union would necessarily do the same and retreat to its ancient borders and withhold further communist encroachment into their countries.

Reagan, however, saw this as it truly was – a war of ideas where in the end there had to be a victor and there had to be a defeated. He stated it very clearly – “Peace is so easy to achieve. I can give it to you in one second. All you have to do is surrender.”

The war had to be won. The consequences of anything other than victory were unthinkable. Astute in recognizing the perfectly aligned circumstances of the support of Pope John Paul II, the Solidarity uprising in Poland, and an opening presented by a slightly more realistic than his predecessors General Secretary Gorbachev, Reagan fearlessly confronted the Soviet regime and at the perfect moment dealt the final blow. His words of defiance against the Soviet empire, like a match, lit the fire of counter revolution throughout Eastern Europe, and the Soviet regime soon collapsed of its own weight and inability to defend its flawed ideals.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, most of the countries previously under its communist vice have since become prosperous market societies, and the American principles of freedom and liberty spread widely across these newly emerging free market democracies. Reagan left behind a legacy of a world much safer and economically viable. Bells of liberty and freedom had been made to ring louder and clearer than ever before. With his legacy we were also reminded of the power of liberty over tyranny and conviction over appeasement.

And here we are, no more than 20 years later faced with circumstances ominously similar to those during Reagan’s presidency. Though there may no longer be a Soviet Union, yet today’s Russia is increasingly becoming emboldened to act with the same dictatorial patterns as the Bolsheviks of half a century years ago. Socialism (or in reality a contorted and deformed version thereof) has been adopted by a number of dictatorial regimes like Venezuela’s Chavez and is spreading to other countries not far from our doorstep (Honduras). Islamic terrorism continues to be an unresolved threat and in fact may be strengthening its roots across the world.

But this time the United States lacks the leadership and conviction it did during the Reagan presidency. Indeed, our ideological infrastructure has been so severely infected with socialist principles and ideology that we cannot even be certain whether we are opposed to the progressive encroachment of hard core collectivism and government control into our way of life. Voices of mainstream political figures uttering words such as “we must accept the increased role of government in our lives” and “it takes a village to raise a child” all point to our increasing acceptance of government as a paternal figure in our lives. This is in complete conflict with our founding principles. It repaints our country with an ideology that is foreign to the core of our beliefs and in many ways invalidates the experiment that had created our country in the first place.

It is important to understand the chain of events that the world socialist envisions. It begins at an individual and national level, where the abandonment of personal liberties leads to the socialization of the society within the respective nation. Once enough individual societies have succumbed to the socialist ideology, this in turn becomes the seed toward globalized socialism, where individual nations forgo their national individuality and interests for the benefit of the global order.

Advertisement

While troubling within the context of our nation, the ramifications on the future of our world are extremely profound.  If America is absorbed into the “community” defined by the world-wide socialist agenda, its leadership role will cease, leaving the world to be led by a dysfunctional conglomerate of nations. As evidenced by the total ineffectiveness of the United Nations, the resulting inaction at a global level can be nothing less than terrifying.

Imagine a world without leadership, with the United States playing an equal partner role with all other countries of the world. A true “to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities.” Equal sharing of all resources. No conflict. No wars. No boundaries.

Utopia, you say? I say absolutely. Then I add. No food. No progress. No innovation. No invention. No individual – only the collective.

To create a world society which completely uproots and ignores the basics of the human behavioral DNA is excellent material for science fiction, but in the real world it is folly. By natural law man strives to become more than what he is. He does so because he anticipates this will improves his life. When he does, by so doing, he contributes to the progress of society.

Man is flawed (thank our Creator for that) and desires more than what he needs. And greed is as much a part of his character as is his need to breathe. Man is also benevolent, and once his needs are generally met, he gladly shares of his goods, first with family, then with others of his choosing.

You can no more remove these traits from man than you can make him refuse food or water. To remove them is to devoid him of the desire to create and improve.

The United States is at the crossroads of determining the shape of its future. While the socialist agenda has been active here for the better part of the 20^th century (Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal), at no time has the pace of radical change been so rapid as during the first 9 months of Barack Obama’s presidency. As if realizing that inconvenient truths must sooner or later catch up with his agenda, the breakneck speed of socialist reforms undertaken by him are intended to reach as far as possible before the electorate realizes the consequences of his  actions.

With each such reform the relevance of the individual fades further and the objective of the statist is closer to being realized.

While no credible single leader has emerged in opposition to this agenda, the electorate is clearly catching on and beginning to establish beachheads in pushing back on many of the reforms. But the voice of a leader in the tradition of Ronald Reagan is yet to be heard.  When he/she emerges, the battle will extend to winning back the statist’s gains and aiming our attention on the world stage, where America’s leadership desperately needs to be reestablished.

The United States has earned the right to be the dominant nation. It has done so by succeeding where others have failed, by creating a society and system of government which recognizes and aligns with man’s desire for freedom and liberty. By so doing it has created great prosperity and a standard of living for its citizens unmatched throughout the world. It has earned the right to lead because of its benevolence toward less prosperous nations, having provided more positive influence and material support for them than any other country and, in fact, more than all other nations under the United Nations banner.

Now our future is far from clear, our destiny far from being secure. The strength and effect of the mounting opposition to Barack Obama’s agenda will determine how far our nation swings in the direction of collectivism and how reversible (if at all) these effects will be. What is at stake is nothing less than the heart of our national identity, the principles of our 200+ year old democracy and the success of the experiment that is the United States of America.

Will history show the era of Ronald Reagan to be just a temporary relapse in the statist’s march toward the eventual imposition of socialist order upon the world? Or will it serve as a lasting testament of the power of conviction and the strength of our ideals that we once again now need to exhibit in defense of our liberty, freedom and national identity?

The answer may very well determine the course of our next 200 years as either Americans or as citizens of the world.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Article may be published with attribution and must include trackback information

Article trackback: http://nakedliberty.com/2009/09/on-the-precipice

Advertisement

Related articles:

• Politicus: Central and Eastern European Countries Issue Rare Warning for U.S. on Russian Policy (nytimes.com)
• Obama’s Missile Defense Concession Holds an Opportunity for European Security (usnews.com)
• Commentary: Why Obama’s plans are stalled (cnn.com)
• Details Emerge of Cold War Nuclear Threat by Cuba (nytimes.com)
• In Kennedy, the Last Roar of the New Deal Liberal (nytimes.com)
• Harry Truman, free marketeer? (marginalrevolution.com)
• Margaret Thatcher, Secret Defender Of Soviet Security (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• The Road Ahead In Kyrgyzstan (eveningwalk.blogspot.com)
• New dawn (news.bbc.co.uk)

Originally posted 2010-04-19 22:34:05. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
April 19, 2010

My liberal friend Pam and I are a perfect example of the class warfare currently being waged in America between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots.’ Also known as ‘the war against the rich,’ or, in a nutshell, socialism.
 
Though Pam and I are lifelong friends, we couldn’t be more different. Pam is the quintessential liberal, quick to espouse views that show America in a bad light. Sarah Palin is evil, Bush is bad and anyone (like myself) that doesn’t base their decisions on feelings is, well, just plain uncompassionate. End of story. I, on the other hand, am a traditional, conservative Christian.
 
Though conservatives have yet to be included under the leftist’s much vaunted ‘tolerance’ and ‘multicultural’ umbrellas, Pam has decided that she will tolerate her renegade friend, as long as that friend doesn’t publicly air any conservative views. Which is becoming a problem for our friendship.
 
Pam is the product of government schools and a culture that ignores merit in favor of any perceived underdog or victim. She is the proud owner of a Masters Degree, which, according to her, validates all of her leftist views – regardless of any facts to the contrary. And its not her fault that, at the ripe age of 57, she has yet to pay off the student loans that paid for her education.
 
Both Pam and I are the end result of the decisions we have made over the course of our lives. Pam’s choices have resulted in her absolute refusal to participate in capitalism, or our free market system. Instead, she survives on a government check, feeling it is her due. And like most who receive something for nothing, she hates the one whose largesse she has chosen to accept. Kinda like all those countries who get aid from America and hate us for it. Hey, no one likes to be acknowledged as being subservient.
 
Fortunately for Pam, her leftists illusions allow her to maintain the moral high ground. Unlike her capitalist friend, who has never asked for or received dime one from the government. I am considered one of the evil ‘rich.’ Pam graciously ignores this fact, at least until she needs another loan.
 
Pam maintains the romantic illusion of being a struggling, misunderstood artist. She exists on a higher plane than Joe Six pack and Susy Homemaker. She is ‘sensitive’ and totally in tune with Mother Earth, victims of capitalism, and all creature great and small. That my tax dollars allow her this freedom is one of those inconvenient facts that Pam has learned to compartmentalize. Meaning she has chosen to ignore (or demonize) any facts that don’t align with her vision of herself.
 
Like most leftists, Pam believes that life is a zero sum game. If someone has a big slice of the pie, that automatically  means that some poor unfortunate has to do with a smaller slice. And all rich people are only rich because they made their money off the backs of those less fortunate.
 
This mind set, while comforting, is not conducive to material success. Which is OK with Pam, as she has spent her whole life eschewing the almighty dollar, choosing instead to allow others, like her ‘rich’ friend and financially stable family members the favor of periodically bailing her out financially. Her only concession to reality.
 
Ever since Obama was elected president, my friendship with Pam has become strained. Though politics was never a part of our friendship in the past, it has now become a factor. Pam apparently feels that Obama’s socialist agenda is the best thing that ever happened to the Oppressive State of America. And since she knows that everyone feels this way, she has no qualms parroting the Dem’s sound bite of the day as fact.
 
Since I know Obama didn’t really cut taxes by $800 billion, it rankles somewhat that Pam believes it. Pam also believes that the government take over of the private sector is long overdue. And that Obama’s take over of the health care system is the only way to ensure social justice. 
 
I don’t blame Pam for her desire for social justice. After all, she just had both hips replaced, courtesy Uncle Sam. And she sees no reason why other misunderstood victims shouldn’t have access to the same free lunch. But her attitude is starting to rankle.
 
Though I am aware of the politically viable yet destructive effect of pitting one class of Americans against another class, I find I am becoming an active participant. I’m starting to resent my friend. I resent her cavalier, tax-payer funded attitude. I am starting to take umbrage at her assumption that her liberal views are the only valid views and any dissent or challenge to her world view is either racist and/or lacking in compassion.
 
I’m starting to resent the fact that people like myself, dirty little capitalists, are required to support deadbeats who have decided to live off the system. All the while, spitting in the eye of those that provide the means. (Sorry, Pam.)
 
Having been allowed the luxury of basing her life on feelings instead of being forced to make a living, Pam now takes great offense should I dare mention any of these inconvenient realities. She will allow no dissent. Our friendship has become political.

Pam wastes no time analyzing my weekly articles as being motivated solely by hate and ‘lacking in compassion.’ She has adopted the proven tactic of continually forcing me to proving a negative. And I just don’t want to do that anymore, especially since I have lost respect for her.
 
With great regret, I realize Pam has become like so many of her fellow leftists. Willing to defend to the death leftists opinions (that are formed by others) and dismissing out of hand any facts to the contrary. If I don’t agree with her, why, there must be something wrong with me. This attitude is not conducive to friendship.
 
Lifelong friendships that have weathered the test of time are rare and should be cherished. That our current political climate has ended this friendship is regrettable. But this case is not unique. Across the nation, friends are pitted against friends, families are dividing along partisan lines and Americans are being encouraged to resent anyone percieved as having more than their (fair)share of the pie.
 
I fear this will continue and become more pervasive under our current president. Raising the distinct possibility of America’s downfall coming from within. The ‘have nots’ and victims are consolidating their premier position at the public trough, forcing others to pay for their ever evolving version of social justice. And considering that fully half of Americans now pay no federal income taxes yet still vote, the chances of changing this through the ballot box are becoming slimmer.
 
I already miss Pam. Our friendship was very important to me and I am saddened that today’s political climate makes it impossible for good friends to agree to disagree. But if the choice is between actively enabling her views by keeping silent or fighting to keep America from turning into a nation of useful idiots, I’ll choose the latter. Without regret.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
 
Article has been published with the author’s permission. 

Originally posted 2009-07-26 19:18:49. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Scott Spiegel
ScottSpiegel.com

Five months after the stimulus bill was passed, we can now say that we’ve witnessed the following under-stimulating results.

Payrolls are falling more than forecast, with employers having cut 467,000 jobs in June, following a 322,000-job decline in May. Factory jobs fell by 136,000 after dropping 156,000 in May.

Unemployment is at 9.5%, the highest level in 15 years, and is projected to exceed 10% by the end of 2009.  Some economists expect it to remain at historically high levels for years.

The average workweek is at 33 hours, the lowest in 45 years.

Average weekly earnings are down to $611.

The national debt is $11.5 trillion.  The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit for 2009 to be almost $2 trillion and for 2010 to be more than $1.4 trillion.

The Treasury is increasing its sale of debt to pay for spending.  Treasury offered $1 trillion in notes and bonds in the first half of 2009 and plans to offer another $1 trillion by the end of 2009.

Colin Powell, of all people, is alarmed that Obama’s spending orgy may be swelling government and the national debt: “I’m concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them…  [We have] a huge, huge national debt that, if we don’t pay for [it] in our lifetime, our kids and grandkids and great-grandchildren will have to pay for…”  Now he tells us!

Jared Bernstein, chief economic advisor to Joe Biden, whose office is managing the stimulus, says, “It’s working, it’s demonstrably working.”  According to Bernstein, $200 billion in stimulus money has already been obligated or spent.  Case closed!

Note to Bernstein: In order to demonstrate causality, you have to show that: (1) there was a cause, (2) there was an effect, and (3) the cause influenced the effect.  Defenders of the stimulus bill are still stuck on #1: as of June, only 10% of all stimulus funds had been distributed.  Bernstein’s $200 billion “obligated or spent” figure—eerily reminiscent of the administration’s “jobs saved or created” trope—is untrustworthy, because the administration has already been caught lying about money committed to spending projects.

Given the miserable failure of the stimulus bill, naturally Congressional Democrats want… another stimulus bill!  According to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, “We need to be open to… further action.”  Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said that another stimulus would “probably take place towards the end of the year.”  Second-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin said he would leave any decisions on passing another stimulus bill to “the president’s evaluation”—and we all know how cautious Barack “Fiscal Restraint” Obama will be.  Stan Collender, former Congressional budget analyst, said that another stimulus bill may be possible if the economy gets worse: “Right now it doesn’t seem to be justified…  Come September, it might be.”

The first stimulus package was “a bit too small,” according to Laura Tyson, member of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.  Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times, “O.K., Thursday’s jobs report settles it.  We’re going to need a bigger stimulus.”  Biden advisor Bernstein says, “There is no conceivable stimulus package on the face of this earth that would fully offset the deepest recession since the Great Depression.”

Let’s see: the stimulus bill committed a record $787 billion in spending.  Tyson says it should have been “a bit” bigger.  Congressional Democrats and Krugman wanted it much bigger.  Bernstein admits it would have to be infinitely big to work.  Can we give Bernstein the award for inadvertent honesty on this one?

The clincher that the stimulus bill was an abject failure—and that another stimulus bill would be a repeat failure—is the fact that Wall Street has just hit a 10-week low after talk of a second stimulus package recently began.  Amateur analysts suggest that chatter about another stimulus bill is making investors nervous, because—get this—it shows that the economy might not be recovering.  According to Hugh Johnson of Johnson Illington Advisors, “When there’s talk about another stimulus plan, that adds fuel to that fire, it intensifies the concerns about the timing and strength of the recovery.”

Is it possible, just possible, that investors are nervous, not because Congress’ hinting at a second stimulus package implies the economy is not recovering—which I think they can figure out on their own—but because Congress is hinting at a second stimulus package?

If Democrats aren’t persuaded by Republicans’ argument, backed up by ample historical data, that spending vast quantities of wealth not yet created does not stimulate the economy in the long term, could they at least admit their little experiment failed and try the Republican option for a change?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scott Spiegel is the editor of ScottSpiegel.com

Article has been published with permission