“The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force said routine mammograms aren't necessary for women of average cancer risk in their 40s, and that women between 50- and 74-years-old don't need to undergo mammograms more often than every other year. The guidelines, published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, also recommend that physicians abstain from teaching women how to examine their breasts for signs of cancer because of a lack of evidence that it is of any benefit.”

-         Wall Street Journal, Nov. 16, 2009

As many of you know, I would be dead now had I followed this new advice from a government task force. So you can guess that I’m outraged by this finding.

Fortunately, the likelihood that insurance companies will use this finding as an excuse to deny coverage for mammograms to women under 50 is slim. Why? Because the states still control the mandates given to insurance companies, and there is enough competition among insurance companies in many states.

But if the healthcare bills currently winding their way through Congress are signed into law, it’s another story. The federal government will take over all control of mandates and what can and cannot be paid for, whether via a single payer or a co-op system. If a federal task force (made up of unelected officials) makes a determination that women don’t need mammograms until age 50, it’s likely the federal government will mandate the denial of coverage of all mammograms for women under 50. The effect: more 40-49 year old women will die of cancer.

(Question: does the benefit of saving money on these routine screenings and the treatment of these women outweigh the cost of these unnecessary deaths? Fight against these healthcare bills, or you won’t have much say in the answer to this question – it will definitely be above your pay grade.)

This leads to the question of why this task force finding came out now, in the middle of the healthcare debate? Any politician, even un-seasoned, can see that this finding will cause an outcry, so why allow its release?  Yes – I have a guess as to why: it’s a sop to the insurance companies to get them back on-board in support of the healthcare bills being considered. It is a clear demonstration to them that federal government control will lead to lower costs – at least for the big insurance companies who are allowed to survive (for awhile, at least). 

So the healthcare debate has gone from lowering costs through more preventative care, to the denial of one of the most effective preventative care procedures to help the insurance companies so they will support, or at least not fight, ObamaCare. We will be forced to purchase federal-government-mandated policies (one-size-fits-all) that will be much more expensive, yet cover less than what we get today, while paying higher taxes for this “benefit.” Sounds like a great deal to me. Then again, maybe I’m not even supposed to express an opinion, given that this government panel doesn’t believe my life is important enough to be concerned about.

Take those evil banks that wouldn’t lend to minorities, closing them out of the housing market. Everyone deserves a good home, so government had to step in with new laws and create the taxpayer-backed Freddie and Fannie, in order to force those greedy bankers to loan money to minorities so they could buy houses. The next thing we knew, those evil speculators tricked a bunch of poor people into purchasing houses they couldn’t afford; and other evil speculators bundled the loans; and the evil Wall Street executives bet American’s retirement money on the bundles, until it all came crashing down on itself. Then the government had to bail out those “too big to fail” on Wall Street and the banks. Now the greedy Wall Street and bank executives are getting paid too much, so the government has to restrict their pay and realign it to lower the risks they take.

Another example is our current healthcare market. We’ve been told the evil insurance companies don’t care about patients and do everything they can to restrict necessary procedures. (Don’t ask me why the healthcare plans include forcing every American – strike that and change it to every resident in America – to purchase health insurance.) Additionally, doctors are cutting off diabetics’ feet and removing children’s tonsils to make a profit. (Maybe we should keep diabetics and children away from these greedy doctors.) The healthcare market is so bad that the government believes it will be able to squeeze out the waste in order to cover more people at a lower cost per person. And we can’t even consider ideas like selling insurance across state lines or allowing individuals the same tax breaks that employers receive for purchasing health insurance. We all know that allowing more market freedom would just cause more greed and evil-doing, which would then require additional government involvement in order to save us all.

Geez - with all of this evidence of market evil, the last thing we need is to create a new market. J

The stated objective of the Copenhagen Agreement is to reduce global greenhouse gasses – a goal that seems innocuous on the surface. The real objective is a power grab to redistribute wealth from developed countries to undeveloped countries for the sake of “equity”. (It’s not fair that the Western world has created global warming conditions, so it must be punished. And it’s not fair that the undeveloped world is – well – undeveloped, so it must be given money.  Insignificant are the factors that caused the undeveloped world to be such. In fact, the treaty calls for the money to be given to the very dictators who are often responsible for keeping their people in impoverished conditions.)

Here are some of my concerns:

·        The COP gets to determine fines on developed countries that do not meet the goals set forth in the treaty, as well as how much each developed country must pay into a fund as punishment for past activities that may have caused global warming based on the “ability” of the country to pay. The COP gets to determine how these funds are distributed, taking into consideration the “needs” of the undeveloped countries. Is there any way to interpret this other than Karl Marx’s maxim: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”? Will there be limits on how much one country needs to pay? If not, can the COP force our government to raise taxes on Americans to whatever level the COP dictates?

·        The treaty calls for technologies to be shared with undeveloped countries. How would this work, given that individuals or private companies invent many of the technologies? Does this mean that our patent system must be done away with? Will our government have to take all inventions that the COP demands from its owners so the COP can give them to others as it sees fit? If so, who will want to invent green technologies?

·        The treaty calls for individual governments to redistribute land as appropriate to lower emissions, increase reforestation, and properly manage forests. Does this mean that we no longer will have property rights? Who is the arbiter of “appropriate”?

·        The treaty says that developed countries must allow migration due to global warming. Does this mean we must open our borders to anyone who claims that they are affected? Who decides whether these people have been affected by global warming, and how will this be measured?

·        The treaty says that all indigenous people must be represented in the decision-making process. How does COP define indigenous people? Will they possibly decide that the Israelis are not “indigenous” and allow the Palestinians to develop all economic and environmental policies for Israel? 

·        The treaty dictates that developed countries must determine that all imports from undeveloped countries do not adversely impact the undeveloped countries’ emissions or forestation. Does this mean that our government needs to monitor every international purchase made in our country? How will private businesses be able to verify that their purchases meet COP dictates without having the federal government make all purchases for them?

·        The treaty does not allow a country to use global warming threats as an excuse to not receive, or to levy duties on, imports. But there isn’t a definition of “global warming threats.” So would we be banned from refusing Chinese toys that contain lead, for example?

The treaty is legally binding, and the COP alone gets to make all determinations under it. The COP can veto a country’s environmental and economic plans. The COP can determine that a country is not meeting its goals under the treaty. The COP can determine any fines payable for not meeting goals. And the COP can increase collections from developed countries at any time due to its determination that undeveloped countries need the resources. And a signatory to the treaty cannot terminate its continued involvement under the treaty unless all other signatories agree.

Bottom line: if our President signs the Copenhagen Agreement, our representative republic, along with all other signatories, will be governed by an unelected United Nations committee under a treaty that leaves many questions and few concrete answers. Add to this that the UN constitution includes a clause at the end that any and all rights granted can be taken away by the UN at any time.

Americans have always wanted to leave a better world to our children. Will the Copenhagen Agreement lead to a better world? Even if we agree that global warming is threatening the earth and that people are the main cause of global warming, will this treaty lower global warming? Or is it all about redistributing the wealth and forming a perfect communist world?

If you believe the latter, please send this to all you know. And please call your representatives to let them know you do not support the Copenhagen Agreement.

Thank you.

The core of conservative belief is written in the Declaration of Independence: We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights (in other words, whether you believe in God or not, we are born with these rights and they cannot be taken away); among these: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Conservatives are against big government and government intrusion into our lives, no matter who is in power. We do not believe that one person, or a group of people, no matter how intelligent and well-educated, can understand the needs and desires of each individual in the country well enough to centrally plan programs to solve what they believe are the problems. Rather, we believe that individuals need to be free to create their own experiences and deal with the consequences, good or bad. Yes, we as good Americans should help those who are having a very hard time – but we should do so individually, taking into consideration the specific situation, rather than allowing a distant group of people to develop one-size-fits-all programs that may or may not help, and usually have unintended consequences.

Conservatives fund local charities; yet we are called greedy. Conservatives believe in taking care of themselves and their families to not burden society; yet we are called selfish. Conservatives believe that people should be judged as individuals, rather than groups, with the content of one’s character more important than skin color; yet we are called racists. Conservatives believe that each individual has unique talents, and the ability to use these talents to earn a living and pursue happiness; yet we are called haters. We believe that each person’s opinion should be heard and considered; yet we are called close-minded.  A conservative talk-show host is attacked with falsehoods, and a member of Congress calls for his disqualification from entering into a private contractual agreement, yet we are called intolerant.

We stand against increased taxes and government growth at tea parties, and government officials and the media call us brownshirts and Nazis. We stand against government involvement in our healthcare decisions, and our President discounts us as liars. We attend townhall meetings to express our opinions and ask those who supposedly represent us to listen to us, and we are intimidated by union thugs and shut out of the discourse.  We express our opinions and ideas to those who we believe to be close friends, and we are called haters, racists, and fascists.

Yes, intolerance of diverse opinions comes from both sides of the aisle. Conservative principles are not found in all Republicans. And, since people are fallible, conservative principles are difficult to embody and employ throughout life. Even though a self-identified conservative doesn’t always live up to his principles, his failures do not disqualify conservative principles.

You may not always like my opinions or ideas, and I may not always like yours, yet we are all better off if we are allowed to speak them, without being called names in order to shut us down.  I will not shut up and get in line, and I will deal with the consequences. I hope you will speak your mind, too – even if you don’t agree with me.

In my last blog, I wrote that Apollo Alliance authored much of the economic stimulus bill (the clean energy and green jobs provisions, specifically), as even Senator Reid has admitted.[1] So how is this economic stimulus working out for America? So poorly that we are close to 10% unemployment, on the cusp of rising interest rates, and there is talk of the need for another stimulus plan. In other words, the Apollo Alliance plan is not working.

So let me tell you about Apollo Alliance and the unbelievable web of links to President Obama.

Apollo Alliance

Apollo Alliance is a project of the TidesCenter, and was founded by Dan Carol, Senator Maria Cantwell, and Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. It is a coalition of labor unions and leftist organizations to promote clean energy and green jobs, while redistributing the wealth.

Board members have included Van Jones, who was recently kicked off the President’s Czar list, Gerald Hudson of the SEIU, Joel Rogers – founder of the New Party, John Podesta – CEO for the Center for American Progress, and members from the Natural Resources Defense Council, United Steelworkers, Laborers’ International Union of North America, and ACORN.

Dan Carol

Mr. Carol was the Obama campaign national issues director and specifically authored the President’s energy policies. In 1992 he was the Research Director for the Democrat National Committee. And he is the Director of the Tides Foundation. Carol founded CTSG in 1993, which has been rolled into Blackbaud – most likely providing Carol with a nice bankroll. CTSG’s clients included MoveOn.org, the NEA, and Nancy Pelosi. (Blackbaud provides software tools and services to non-profits for fundraising and online advocacy.) 

Carol is currently involved with Green Harvest Technologies, which he co-founded with David Levine and Gary Cohen. Green Harvest has developed a non-toxic bottle that can be used multiple times, which it sells to hospitals. (Gary Cohen is the founder of Healthcare Without Harm and the executive director of the Environmental Health Fund. One can guess that his advocacy through these organizations provides Green Harvest with much influence in hospital purchasing decisions.)

I cannot find specific evidence that Green Harvest Technologies is receiving economic stimulus funds, but it does smell funny. Especially since Green Harvest seems to have a lot of influence with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A summary of the Gund Institute/7^th Gen summit on sustainability included this tidbit: “Other highlights include a revelation from David Levine, of Green Harvest Technologies, that during his meeting with Lisa Jackson, the new head of the EPA, she said “speak to me as a mom.”[2]

Tides Foundation and TidesCenter

Tides Foundation was founded by Wade Rathke (ACORN) and Drummond Pike as a public charity that receives donations, which it then funnels to radical organizations – in other words, laundering the money so that the donators do not have their names associated with the radical organizations. In order to get around non-profit restrictions, The Tides Center was created as an advocacy group, and is directed by Wade Rathke. In order to keep this understandable, I’ll only provide a few highlights. For more in-depth information, please see http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5184&category=79.

(Note that Discoverthenetworks.org is a David Horowitz project. Horowitz is a pre-eminent guru on the left, mostly because he was a leading radical leftist author until his friend was killed by the Black Panthers, which caused him to rethink his entire world-view.)

The Tides Foundation has been heavily funded by George Soros, the Heinz Endowments (run by Teresa Heinz Kerry) and the federal government (yes – our tax money), and in turn has provided funds to many extremely liberal organizations, including ACORN, several George Soros organizations, the Environmental Working Group, Woods Fund of Chicago, and the Joyce Foundation. Additionally, Tides Foundation Director Drummond Pike sits on the Environmental Working Group board, along with David Fenton. (Pretty cozy.)

Also interesting is this from Discoverthenetworks.org: “Tides also runs a tax-exempt "alternative media source" called the Institute for Global Communications (IGC), a leading provider of Web technology to the radical left.” (Hmm – I wonder if there is any connection with Blackbaud? Can anyone confirm a link?)

One other tidbit: the daughter of George Wiley sits on the board of TidesCenter.

Obama’s board experience at the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation

But wait – it gets even better. President Obama sat on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago from 1999 – 2002 (during the timeframe it received funding from the Tides Foundation), along with Bill Ayers. And President Obama sat on the board of the Joyce Foundation from 1994 – 2002 (again, during the timeframe it received funding from the Tides Foundation), along with Valerie Jarrett. And the Joyce Foundation provided millions in grants to the Environmental Working Group and the Natural Resources Defense Council while Obama was on its board.

Cloward-Piven Strategy / Maximum Eligible Participation Solution

So we have all these organizations that passed money around between them, and Obama was involved. So why does this matter? Because many of these organizations and people can be directly linked to a strategy to destroy U.S. institutions in order to institute a Marxist government in America by overloading the welfare system until it crumbles. This strategy was first known as the Cloward-Piven strategy, and has also been called the “Maximum Eligible Participation” solution (MEPS), which is still being pushed by Wade Rathke.

George Wiley

Here’s a little history: George Wiley has been touted as the first to effectively use the Cloward-Piven strategy as the founder of the National Welfare Reform Organization, which was able to significantly increase the welfare roles, especially in New York, which purportedly went bankrupt in response. Wiley mentored Wade Rathke, who went on to found ACORN and co-found the Tides Foundation. (Note how tight this ACORN/Tides Foundation link is from this anecdote: when it was discovered that Wade Rathke’s brother, Dale, had embezzled nearly $1 million from ACORN, none other than Drummond Pike repaid the money to ACORN. Rathke then covered up the embezzlement, not even disclosing it to the ACORN Board of Directors.)

During the same time as learning the Cloward-Piven strategy from Wiley, Rathke also organized a draft-resistance campaign for the militant group Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which was the starting point for the Weathermen.

ACORN

ACORN has utilized the Cloward-Piven strategy brilliantly in its get-out-the-vote efforts. We now know that many of these efforts have included fraud, which I believe was the point all along – to make American’s distrustful of the election system in order to topple our Republic. There is also a direct link between ACORN’s advocacy for home-loans for minorities and the sub-prime crises that lead to our economic collapse. Was this, too, on purpose? Add to this that ACORN advocates for open borders. Hmm – to add more dependents to the government-handout programs in order to crash the system? And ACORN supports the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for unions to unionize corporations (no secret ballot) and allow a government arbitrator (picked from the unions) to dictate union contract terms. Is this a strategy to collapse what remains of capitalism in America?

Obama’s Ties To ACORN

Mona Charen reported in September, 2008, the following:

"ACORN attracted Barack Obama in his youthful community organizing days. Madeline Talbott [a Chicago activist who led the aforementioned ACORN effort to storm the Chicago City Council in July 1997] hired him to train her staff -- the very people who would later descend on Chicago's banks as CRA shakedown artists. [Obama] later funneled money to [ACORN] through the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat, and through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, ditto. Obama was not just sympathetic -- he was an ACORN fellow traveler."[3]

The New York Post reported the following during the same timeframe:

"Chicago ACORN sought out Obama's legal services for a 'motor voter' case and partnered with him on his 1992 'Project VOTE' registration drive. In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks. More than that, Obama was  funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers -- and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.

"The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.

"And, as the leader of another charity -- the Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- Obama channeled more funding Talbott's way, ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts.

"In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate [in 1996], saying, 'We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer.'"[4]

Also recall that Obama’s presidential campaign contracted with ACORN for a get-out-the-vote effort for $800,000, and after being elected, told ACORN that it would be instrumental in his administration.

Obama’s Ties To Bill Ayers

Additionally, Obama worked directly with Bill Ayers at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, despite his claim of barely knowing Ayers. And more evidence is emerging that Ayers ghost-wrote Obama’s book Dream Of My Father. Ayers was a member of the Weathermen / Weather Underground, along with David Fenton. (Remember Fenton? He sits on the Environmental Working Group board with Drummond Pike, who bailed out Dale Rathke. I told you it was a tight family. Fenton also is tied with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is best known for the Alar (Washington apples) and breast implant hoaxes. His PR firm, Fenton Communications, is used by Open Society Institute (OSI), a George Soros organization.)

Obama’s Ties To the New Party

Add to Obama’s ties to ACORN and Ayers his ties to the New Party. He sought out (in 1995) and received (in 1996) the endorsement of the New Party.   Carl Davidson, a former SDS member and avowed Marxist, was a major player in the Chicago branch of the New Party, which is nothing more than a Marxist political coalition. New Party members include ACORN, Democratic Socialists of America, and the SEIU. In order to receive the New Party endorsement, Obama also became a member.

So what do you think? Is our President purposely trying to destroy America so he can create a Marxist government? Can this explain his close relationship with Hugo Chavez and other world dictators? Is this why he seemed to care more about bringing the Olympics to Chicago than about winning in Afghanistan or saving our economy? Personally, I sincerely hope not. But I can’t help wondering.

Speaking of the Olympics, I’ll go into some detail on Obama’s ties to people who stood to make millions on a Chicago Olympics in my next posting. Suffice it to say, he was trying to pay back some significant favors. Stay tuned…

According to Investors Business Daily, Apollo Alliance wrote the majority of the bill in 2008, and President Obama and Congress accepted it nearly as-is.[1]

Apollo Alliance is a group of liberal activists focused on redistribution of wealth, environmental justice (which is the same thing as redistribution of wealth), and saving the Earth (basically through the redistribution of wealth).

Board members of Apollo Alliance included the self-described communist Van Jones (who Obama recently ousted from his growing list of Czars); the co-founder of Weather Underground Jeff Jones (yes – the other founder is Bill Ayers, the ghost author of Obama’s books and one of the key launchers of Obama’s political and community-organizing careers); Gerard Hudson (SEIU), Leo Gerard (United Steelworkers of America) and Terence M. O’Sullivan (Laborers’ International Union of North America); the founder of ACORN Wade Rathke; and the CEO of the Center for American Progress (a George Soros funded progressive think-tank) John Podesta. Mr. Podesta also co-chaired the Obama-Biden Transition Project, which likely is how the Apollo Alliance economic stimulus bill was brought to Obama’s attention.

We don’t know exactly where the estimated 1/3 of the economic stimulus has gone, since the Recovery.com website still isn’t complete even with its $9.5 million redesign. My guess is the ARRA was written to redistribute the wealth into the pockets of those who authored it.  One thing we do know is that our economy is not recovering.  Then again, it is becoming evident that ARRA was not written to improve our economy. 

I will spend some time investigating the board members, staff, and financiers of Apollo Alliance over the coming days to understand their views and whether any of them received taxpayer money under ARRA. Stay tuned…

Most have already heard about Van Jones, who resigned from his post of Environmental Czar due to his links to communism and the 9/11 conspiracy nuts. And some have heard about Cass Sunstein, the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, who believes animals should have the same rights as people. But there are so many more Obama advisers with out-of-the-mainstream beliefs that it is becoming extremely difficult to keep up with the revelations.

Over the course of the next few weeks, I will share some thoughts on what these people can tell us about the President’s potential policies. Some of my thoughts may seem whacky, but as we rang in 2009, who would have thought that the government would take over the banks and two automobile companies within a few short months?

1. Lisa P. Jackson and the EPA

On April 17, 2009, the EPA found that six man-made “greenhouse gases are contributing to air pollution that may endanger public health and welfare.”[1] One of the main culprits is carbon dioxide – the very carbon dioxide that each of us exhales with every breath we take throughout our lives.

If our breaths are killing our planet, isn’t it the EPA’s responsibility, as the governmental agency responsible for protecting our environment, to try to decrease the number of breaths exhaled by Americans over our lifetimes? Could this be the logic behind ObamaCare, under which rationing of healthcare by government bureaucrats will be the only way to keep costs from exploding? Perhaps this is also the reason that President Obama has been such a firm abortion-advocate during his entire political career.

In an August 28, 2009 article on the Huffington Post[2], the Obama-appointed EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said that poor Americans are significantly more affected by this man-caused air pollution, which she implies is primarily caused by richer Americans. 

If richer Americans are causing most of the greenhouse gases, couldn’t we eliminate greenhouse gases by lowering economic prosperity so there are fewer richer Americans? Could this be the logic behind allowing the economic recession to continue to worsen? Additionally, this completely explains why then-Candidate Obama expressed his desire to “spread the wealth around.”

Check back regularly for more...

1. Too many government mandates on what insurance must cover cause insurance rates to increase and no ability to shop across state lines reduces competition.  This reduces the number of people who can afford insurance for catastrophic occurences.
2. No portability causes people to be uninsured between jobs.
3. Patients who are insured often don't know anything about the costs since they receive their insurance through their employers.  This often causes patients to use the healthcare system when they wouldn't had they needed to pay out-of-pocket.  Additionally, uninsured patients often misuse hospital emergency rooms, where they receive free care no matter how minor their illness.
4. A lack of personal responsibility causes many Americans to believe that someone else will take care of them if they make bad decisions.
5. Malpractice insurance costs have gone through the roof over the last couple of decades.

1. Reduce state mandates and allow people to shop for insurance across state lines.  We should be able to purchase insurance for catastrophic care only if we want (which would be much less expensive than current health insurance, which covers everything from accupuncture to alcohol rehab - kind of like expecting good rates on auto insurance that covers gasoline and oil changes).  We should also be able to save tax-free money in a health savings account to use for general care.  These HSA accounts should be able to accumulate over time, and should be able to be inherited upon death just like any other asset.  Also, if each person had to spend their own money on their general care, doctors would be forced to offer competitive rates, just as lasik eye surgeons and plastic surgeons (not to mention veterinarians) do now.  Bottom line - we want more choices!
2. Insurance should be owned by the individual/family, and not by the employer.  We don't receive auto or home insurance from our employers, and you may notice that auto insurance costs keep going down.  Also, health insurance companies should be able to provide discounts based on factors such as weight, smoking, and alcohol consumption, just as auto insurance companies provide discounts for students with high GPAs and on cars that have alarms.
3. Tort reform to place caps on what attorneys can receive for lawsuits against doctors in order to reduce the malpractice insurance that excellent doctors have to pay - and pass on to us via higher fees.
4. Allow people to suffer the consequences of their decisions - and not be saved by the taxpayers.  We, as good Americans, should give to charities to help these people.  But it is not the government's responsibility to save everyone from their bad decisions all the time.

If you have read all the way to here, thank you very much for your attention and consideration.  I hope that you will speak out with me against government-run healthcare in America.  I hope I don't have a reoccurence of cancer, but if I ever do, I pray that I can receive the same quality care that saved my life 1 1/2 years ago.  God bless us all.