Are Barack Obama’s “Dreams” Ruining America?

The President's own words, laid out in his books before he sought any office, may explain why those who adored him are disappointed, and those who feared him are convinced they were right.
It appears that the "Dreams of [his] Father" are the key to understanding Barack Obama's actions as President, and what he sees as the future of America and American government.

Theories abound to explain the President's goals and actions. Critics in the business community--including some Obama voters who now have buyer's remorse--tend to focus on two main themes. The first is that Obama is clueless about business. The second is that Obama is a socialist--not an out-and-out Marxist, but something of a European-style socialist, with a penchant for leveling and government redistribution.
These theories aren't wrong so much as they are inadequate. Even if they could account for Obama's domestic policy, they cannot explain his foreign policy. The real problem with Obama is worse--much worse.

Dinesh D'Souza, "How Obama Thinks" www.forbes.com...

With election season uponus, we are getting a reminder of “the Campaigner Obama,” whose rhetoric once galvanized and energized a core of liberal American support as it never had been before.
It also brings to mind the warnings that I and others had tried to spread that all was not as it seemed with Barack Obama II. More than once, I have implored those who seek to understand his true motivations and aspirations to read and contemplate Obama’s past; both as a politician and as an author.
Today, many once avid, if not rabid, followers are disillusioned. Those who saw in him a threat to American greatness and leadership, and as an antagonist, at best, of capitalism and free markets have seen their worst fears and predictions realized.
Dinesh D’Souza, a conservative scholar and author, has provided what may be the best insight into what, exactly, shapes Barack Obama’s vision and plans for his presidential agenda and the future of this country. It will ring true to those on both sides, and will reveal the underlying agenda driving Obama in his “transformation” of America.

What then is Obama's dream? We don't have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father's dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn't writing about his father's dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father.

How Obama Thinks

As he related in his first book, President Obama's life and goals are driven by the “Dreams From My Father,” Barack Obama, Sr.:
D’Souza sums it up thusly:

Clearly the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. goes a long way to explain the actions and policies of his son in the Oval Office. And we can be doubly sure about his father's influence because those who know Obama well testify to it. His "granny" Sarah Obama (not his real grandmother but one of his grandfather's other wives) told Newsweek, "I look at him and I see all the same things--he has taken everything from his father. The son is realizing everything the father wanted. The dreams of the father are still alive in the son."

How Obama Thinks


We can trace the elder Obama’s life as an anti-colonial leader and activist, showing how the focus of his rage against “imperial” governments shifted from the Europeans to the United States; and, how these feelings have colored and influenced all of his son’s actions as an adult, in and out of government. In fact, you could take some of the father’s own words, and easily work them into one of the son’s speeches:

"We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now."

The senior Obama proposed that the state confiscate private land and raise taxes with no upper limit. In fact, he insisted that "theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."
Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father's history very well, has never mentioned his father's article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House.

Do his father’s views really fit in with Obama’s present-day principles?

From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.
For Obama, the solutions are simple. He must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West.

Now, we have a conservative scholar laying out, in simple terms, not only where Barack Obama comes from, but where he plans to take us, and the rest of the world.

It’s not too late to gain a deeper understanding of the man in the office of the Chief Executive of the United States. It may be too late to do much about it, though.

jw

Dinesh D'Souza, formerly of the Hoover Institution and Stanford University, is currently the President of The King's College in New York City.  D'Souza is a noted conservative who has described conservatism as

"the belief that there are moral standards in the universe and that living up to them is the best way to have a full and happy life."

Mitch Daniels sounds off on health care reform bill

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has spoken out recently on several occasions about the effects of federal health care legislation on states’ economies, and on the effectiveness of consumer-driven health care, such as under programs in effect in Indiana.

Daniels signed landmark health care legislation during his first term, called Healthy Indiana, providing health insurance for those who earn too much for Medicaid but too little to afford their own coverage.  Under the plan, the state contributes permanent funds to individual health savings accounts.  Participants may also contribute; and when the account is depleted, a catastrophic insurance plan kicks in to cover any additional expenses.  The plan promotes preventive care and encourages citizens to become more value-conscious consumers of health care.  A similar plan offered to state employees now has over 70% participation (including the Governor); and only 3% have chosen to opt-out for an alternative PPO.

Appearing on Fox News’ “Journal Editorial Report” with Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot, Daniels spelled out his belief that Indiana’s legislative contingent should turn down the pending federal legislation.  One of his greatest concerns is for the state’s programs.  Calling the federal bill “very ill conceived,” Daniels went on to add that, “[Indiana’s] program for uninsured citizens would be wiped out,” by passage of the healthcare reform bill.

Calling the proposed reforms “a vey large mistake,” Daniels said he would advise his state’s Congressional delegation to focus more on incremental improvements, adding that he believed that health care reforms (such as the Indiana HSA program) should “individualize tax benefits” and “trust people more with their own decisions about their own health.”.

In an interview with CBS’ Nancy Cordes, Daniels emphasized the contrasts between current health care programs and the Indiana HSAs: “It's our current system that favors the wealthy and the healthy.  [Healthy Indiana] … respects the autonomy and dignity of its participants.”  Daniels also noted, "It's saving a lot of money for the employee and the employer."

Mitch Daniels takes a populist position that health care consumers are the best decisions makers where costs and choice of health care are concerned.  He wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, “The Indiana experience confirms what common sense already tells us.  … There will be no meaningful cost control until we are all cost controllers in our own right.  Americans can make sound, thrifty decisions about their own health. If national policy trusted and encouraged them to do so, our skyrocketing health-care costs would decelerate.”

US Started Iraq War ‘Just for Oil?’ Not really!

Iraq has concluded the bidding for oil-development and production from its largest and most lucrative fields.  American oil companies were absent from the field of winners, dominated by oil companies from China, Russia, Angola, Japan, France, Britain, the Netherlands and Malaysia.

[ex]Iraqi officials said this proved their independence from U.S. influence and that their two bidding rounds this year for deals to tap Iraq's vast oil reserves, the world's third largest, were free of foreign political interference.

The Oil Ministry on Saturday ended its second bidding round after awarding seven of the oilfields offered for development, adding to deals from a first auction in June that could together take Iraq up to a capacity to pump 12 million barrels per day.[/ex]
No boon for U.S. firms in Iraq oil deal auction
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BB18Q20091213">http://www.reuters.com/article

Only one U.S. firm bid in the second round.  Of the four fields bid on by U.S. firms in the first round, only Exxon Mobil won a major prize, as part of a group awarded a contract for the West Qurna Phase One field.  U.S.-based Occidental was able to participate with a minor stake in a group that won a contract for the Zubair field.

[ex]"For us in Iraq, it shows the government is fully free from outside influence. Neither Russia nor America could put pressure on anyone in Iraq -- it is a pure commercial, transparent competition," said government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh.  "No one, even the United States, can steal the oil, whatever people think."

"The results of the bid round should lay to rest the old canard that the U.S. intervened in Iraq to secure Iraqi oil for American companies," said Philip Frayne, a spokesman at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.  The results run counter to predictions of some critics of the U.S.' 2003 Iraqi invasion, who envisaged domination of Iraqi oil by U.S. oil majors.

"We haven't really seen U.S. companies, and that is because of intense competition ... The issue is financial and technical and not at all political. This confirms Iraq can manage its oil policy and activities without politicization," said Thamir Ghadhban, a prime ministerial advisor and former oil minister.[/ex]

While American companies continue to develop properties and rights in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and gas fields in Qatar, other nations have been touting their success in the bidding wars for Iraqi oil “Production Sharing Agreement” (PSA) rights, which allow foreigners to participate in development while retaining oil revenue for the Iraqi government and its citizens.

These include Russia:
Lukoil-led group signs deal for prized Iraqi oilfield”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BP10420091229?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&rpc=76

China and France:
Iraq initials deal for Halfaya oilfield
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE5BL02X20091222
Malaysia and Japan:
Petronas group to invest up to $8bln in Iraq field
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE5BK0NM20091221
and the Dutch and Britain:
Iraq, Shell ink deal on supergiant Majnoon field
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BJ0GO20091220

Can we expect retractions, corrections, apologies?  No, the “believers” will ignore facts and continue to harp on the “American war for oil.”

Obama using Flight 253 to gain control, not prevent or protect

You would expect that the immediate response to the failed bombing of Flight 253 would have been to mobilize intelligence and Homeland Security resources to address failures and assess strengths, right?

Not in this administration!

Instead of facing up to its failure to act against a potential threat from a religious extremist, the Obama administration immediately poured all its resources into trying to divert attention to ... GWB, of course!
On December 26, two days after Nigerian Omar Abdulmutallab allegedly attempted to use underwear packed with plastic explosives to blow up the Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight he was on, and as it became clear internally that the Administration had suffered perhaps its most embarrassing failure in the area of national security, senior Obama White House aides, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and new White House counsel Robert Bauer, ordered staff to begin researching similar breakdowns -- if any -- from the Bush Administration.
...
"This White House doesn't view the Northwest [Airlines] failure as one of national security, it's a political issue," says the White House source. "That's why Axelrod and Emanuel are driving the issue."

The Politics of Incompetence

It seems that vital resources at DHS, FBI, NSA and CIA took a backseat to political operatives, who are still hard at work defending our citizenry from George Bush.

"The idea was that we'd show that the Bush Administration had had far worse missteps than we ever could," says a staffer in the counsel's office. "We were told that classified material involving anything related to al Qaeda operating in Yemen or Nigeria was fair game and that we'd declassify it if necessary."

The White House, according to the source, is in full defensive spin mode. Other administration sources also say a flurry of memos were generated on December 26th, 27th, and 28th, which developed talking points about how Obama's decision to effectively shut down the Homeland Security Council (it was merged earlier this year into the National Security Council, run by National Security Adviser James Jones) had nothing to do with what Obama called a "catastrophic" failure on Christmas Day.

Just as many suspect, Obama's greatest concern in response to the failed terrorist attack was not for identification and prevention of foreign attacks, but was for the preservation of his administration's power and ability to continue with his domestic agenda.

What was the first "big step" the administration took in the aftermath? Buy a controlling interest in GMAC and Allied Bank.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread530709/pg1

I do not believe Barack Obama has the necessary motivation to take ANY substantive actions. He wants the US to have more internal police power. The more threatened and victimized we become, the greater his ability to impose more domestic control.

What better way to impose the ultimate "nanny state" than to assert, "This is for your own good," and back it up with proof of the threats and danger that only Washington can address?

"Swine flu," "global warming." "housing crisis," and "economic collapse," haven't worked so far.

Take it one step farther. Our health, environment, finances and homes weren't enough.

Now, people must die.

Recall that he, Clinton, Emmanuel and others in the administration chant the same mantra:

Rahm Emmanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
Hillary Clinton: “Never waste a good crisis.”
Obama: “Time of crisis can be 'great opportunity'”

(Saw this coming back in March)

I really believe that Obama has absolutely NO motivation to take any concrete FOREIGN action in these regards. The worse things get, the better for his agenda.

His administration needs help. He needs this.

Nov. 18, 2008
Rahm Emmanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Mar. 6, 2009
Hillary Clinton: “Never waste a good crisis.”

Mar. 8, 2009
Obama: “Time of crisis can be 'great opportunity'”

Ever since Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel paraphrased economist Alan Friedman last November, saying, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” the Obama administration has followed this path to push its agenda into the forefront of the public consciousness.

By turning every issue (climate, health care, banks, housing, the economy, et c.) into a “crisis,” Obama and his administration have preyed upon fear and desperation to push aside reasoned debate.

Using Congress as the scriveners, Obama has crafted blueprints for his socialist plans and turned them over to the Democrats in the House and Senate to solve, or fail.

When, you have to ask, will we become desensitized and deaf to the cries of “crisis” every time Obama wants to move his socialist agenda another step forward?

The majority of Americans are now realizing the results of Obama's agenda.

Isn't it funny how time has borne this out?

Obama will say ANYTHING that gains him support, regardless of his intentions.

I've said the same thing since he and Hillary were facing-off in 2008.

Read his books if you want to see what he really intends to accomplish.
(Been saying that, too. Is it too late?)

So, here we are nearly 6 months later and what do we see?

Economic "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Swine flu "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Energy "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Banking "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Automobile "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Housing "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Credit "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Health care "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Media "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.

Wanna know what's next?

"Civil unrest," "inflammatory speech," "right-wing terror," and anything else that threatens an expanding liberal/progressive/Obama constituency.

I won't say "I told you so."

Deny ignorance!

jw

Why Health Insurance Doesn’t Work, and How to Fix It

Why Health Insurance Doesn’t Work, and How to Fix It

Health insurance has failed because it underwrites basic certainties, rather than risks. What risk is there that an average working adult will need medical attention in a 12 month span? Probably 50%; maybe better. Thus, a third party guarantor betting against the attendant expenses must be able to charge an inflated "premium" for his promise to pay the bet if he loses. The amount of his payment does not matter as long as his margin, the difference between the premium and the payment ( and the XX% risk-factor), is carefully maintained.

Since the need for some medical attention by a "fee for service" provider is high, the insured risk is not really a risk at all, but an eventual certainty. Over a 5 year period, the insurer/guarantor/bettor will almost certainly be called upon to pay. And, since the bettor does not barter or receive the services, he is mostly excluded from the base transaction. Attempts to inject himself into the purchase and provision of the services skews the focus of the underlying relationship away from the consumer and toward the guarantor, usually without consideration of the medical necessity or efficacy of the services sought, and more importantly to him, toward the cost/return on investment calculations vital to his success.

Health care insurance fails because it does not insure against a "risk." Working Americans do not benefit by spending their health care dollars underwriting the insurers' betting system. They would be better served, and their money more carefully spent, if they controlled the purchase of medical services. Insurers are necessary for those medical expenses that truly are risks; accidents, catastrophic and chronic illness, and the results of activities voluntarily engaged in by the consumer (e.g., skydiving, bullfighting, smoking).

If an average working American set aside the "premium" dollars he spent each month, tax free, to spend as needed at market-driven rates, he would have a readily available pool of funds with which to make his choices, much like pre-qualifying for a mortgage or pre-approval for a car loan. But, what about immediate needs before he has accumulated the "pool", and the danger of the unexpected emergency?

A lump sum payment, equal to the employer's share of his health insurance premium premium, would quickly establish the necessary pool of funds available to employees, per capita, or upon any system the company and employee agree upon. The employer's incentive would also be a reduction of his tax liability for any contributions and maintenance costs related to the creation, funding and administration of the fund.

Unexpected expenses could be insured against with individual policies, similar in terms to the "Accidental Death and Dismemberment" coverage so cheaply available that no one takes its costs seriously - or the risks! Which is why such coverage reflects true "insurance" and affordable leverage of risk by individuals and groups, depending upon the nature of the risk covered.

Imagine health care insurance being as cheap as "air travel" or "trip" insurance. Imagine the "Doc-in-a-Box" vying with the branch clinic of the local Community Hospital, or the dentist's office offering "employee discounts" to "Smith Toyota's" employees and preferred customers. This is market-driven health care. Not a no-frills industry, but a competitive marketplace in which special, expensive services are readily available to those who need them, with collective pools of consumer-controlled, and specific-risk-underwritten, dollars set aside for such eventualities.

Average workers with average needs and expenses will control their health care with their own money. Extraordinary expenses would be paid for with employer-contributed funds and insurance, or by a government-funded pool, for accident and catastrophic care expenses. (Careful employers will make "extraordinary expense" coverage a part of the pool contribution scheme.)

"Friends of Barack" Ruin His Campaign( if not his reputation) in Ignomy

F.O.B. Will Spoil the Campaign

Remember the F. O. B.? “Friends of Bill.” The members of the group didn’t matter as much as the message membership carried. If you were an FOB, you had the man’s ear; you were his ‘bud.’ The term was powerful, often to the point of intimidation.

Today, the F.O.B. label can have even more impact, although not for the same man and certainly not for the same reasons. Today’s FOB can derail an otherwise well-thought-out campaign for the highest office in the land and the most powerful elected position in the developed world.

Picture this:

“William Ayers; terrorist. Courthouse bomber. Defiantly anti-establishment and arguably defiantly anti-American:”. Friend of Barack.

“Tony Rezko, financial opportunist. Shady deal-maker. Financier to his supporters. Convicted felon:” Friend (and Neighbor (NOB?))of Barack.

“Father Michael Pfleger, renegade priest. Evangelist for separation and destruction:” Friend of Barack.

“Jeremiah Wright, preacher of hate and dissension. 'God Damn America.’ Shepherd to his flock:” Friend of Barack.

Consider a 15- or 30-second spot focused on each of the foregoing FOBs, individually, 4 spots, and closing with a notation that he is a “Friend of Barack.” Follow up with a fifth (or more, depending on how many FOBs you ultimately desire to use) tying them all together as the Friends Of Barack!.

The campaign reels. The candidate squeals.

Getting Your Feet "Wet" With Wine – Don’t Be Afraid

Are you tired of feeling empty-handed or empty-headed when the waiter brings you a wine list? Wouldn't it be nice to scan down the list and identify not just the wines that would let the waiter (and your dining companion) know that you can't be fooled-with, but which might result in a really enjoyable meal or evening?

Snobbishness aside, there's not much to learning enough to make intelligent choices and enjoy yourself at the same time. You will find that the surprises in a bottle of "grape juice" can often far exceed expectations, and can lead to revelations that can add dimensions of pleasure and satisfaction to an evening that would otherwise have been only O.K.

First, decide what you like. Fruit? Sweetness? Gobs of grape, currant and other flavors that develop in the glass before you eyes and nose? The scents and tastes of subtle characteristics can amaze you. A single varietal can yield chocolate, mint, cedar, flint, melon, and limitless variations depending on the vineyard, the winemaker and the conditions under which the grapes matured. Did you know that there are wines that begin as one thing and evolve in minutes into something else entirely? The same grapes that yield dark purple fruit, on the palate can taste like nuts or roses as well.

First thing first.

The easiest way to start is to think about color. Whites tend to be light and "short" on after-taste and flavor, although some of the fullest-bodied and most expensive wines in the world are made from white varietals. That doesn't mean they're bad; it's just that the experience with most whites tends to be more fleeting and instantaneous than reds, which can take time to develop.

Reds can be "full forward," with gobs of fruit that jump out at you from the glass, or more subdued, that sit and "evolve" as they sit in the glass, an open bottle, or decanter.

There are amazing examples of each, and oddballs that don't fit any ordinary description. That is the intriguing quality that brings wine drinkers back to try new revelations, or to find old friends, that makes wine among the oldest and most satisfying of all foods.

Now, for the nitty-gritty:

For whites, go with the basic chardonnay grape. Ask the server for his or her recommendations; that's what they're being paid to do, after all. More often than not, an experienced server has tasted the wines on the list and is not inclined to recommend anything other than his or her favorite. Don't be afraid to set a price limit! Most restaurants will mark a wine up about 100% above the retail price, but keep in mind that this reflects the cost of storing and serving the wine at your convenience.

With a chardonnay, there are two basic types: the citrus-y, lighter drink that slips off the tongue and can leave a taste of melon, pineapple, or flint; and, the heavier, butter-filled glass that lingers long after you've swallowed. Both are best chilled and are typically at their best "young," that is, within just a few years of the vintage.

Reds, on the other hand, are generally considered "heavier," more complex, and full-bodied; although there are plenty of fantastic reds, such as Pinot Noir, that are not heavy on the palate at all, but bring nuanced flavors instead of an explosion of fruit and oak. Reds typically have aged for a few years so it is not unusual to have a vintage wine released 2, 3, or even 4 years after the date it was picked. Sometimes, "bottle age" is necessary for a red wine to develop to its fullest potential. Again, in a restaurant don't be afraid to ask for a recommendation.

But what if you want make the decision?

Here's a shorthand guide:

According to such authorities as Robert Parker and The Wine Spectator, most California reds were best in 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2003 and should still be on the market, although supplies are dwindling and you may have to hunt a little. I've tasted several and I agree; leaning to the 2002s, myself (mostly because of availability). Wine hunting is great fun and can be a learning experience in itself. Most liquor stores and wine shops have at least one "expert" who can guide you. These same authorities give high marks to the 2003, 2006 and 2005 French Rhones and Bordeaux. Unfortunately, the 2005s are so spectacular that they will cost you much more than the entirely adequate 2003 and 2006, if you can find them. Most top quality '05s were bought as "futures" before they were even released to the market.

Wine futures can be outstanding bargains if you are willing to buy without tasting and then wait 2 years for delivery. I've done it myself quite successfully. Wine I bought as a $26.00 "future" now sells for over $300.00 a bottle, if you can find it.

The whites of California have never been better than the 2005 and 2004 Chardonnay, but they may be difficult to find at this late date.

Recent releases from Washington and Oregon, typically reds, have been excellent.

South American and Australian growers are producing extraordinary wines at very reasonable prices. They are exceptional wine values. A 2005 or 2006 Australian Shiraz (made from the syrah grape) will likely please most red wine fans. Again, this may be a fleeting opportunity as these wines catch on in the marketplace. (One of the most expensive wines in the world is an Australian "Penfolds" shiraz)

If you see an Argentinean or Chilean 2004, 2005 or 2006 malbec, you will likely be pleasantly surprised. Some famous French and American vintners are now producing there, although native growers have done extremely well lately as well. If you see one on the wine list at dinner, go for it. You will not only enjoy the experience, you will be recognized as an innovator and insider.

French whites on your list will include Macon-Villages and Chambertin, although new varietals are being tried by many top producers. These are essentially chardonnay, but with character added by the growing region and climate, a combination known as "terroir. These growers vary from region to region, often only a few meters away from each other, but with subtle or sometimes striking differences, again depending on terroir and the grower.

Always be on the lookout for “Vin-de-Pays,” which is a term used for French “country wines” that are always inexpensive, usually ready to drink now, go with almost anything or by themselves as an ‘aperetif,’ and frequently well worth the money.

Once again, do not be afraid to ask a shop-keeper or your waiter: "What $20.00 white is best with bisque?" As with auto service, you will likely benefit from advice from someone who's been there and done that; seen, tasted and sold the wines you have to choose from. Remember, they want you come back and buy more!

After dinner, try a glass of "port" wine. Originally from Portugal, the name has now become generic for many "fortified" red wines. These are wines that have a higher sugar and alcohol level and can develop for decades in the bottle. One of my favorites is an Australian port, made by Yalumba, and called "Galway Pipe." You will be amazed that a grape can be made to taste like that!

To gain confidence, you may want to consider the vintage rating systems developed by such authorities as "The Wine Advocate" (http://www.winespectator.com/) or Robert Parker (http://www.erobertparker.com)/." Write down their top-rated vintages, compare them, and go hunting. Enjoy!