Referendum Language for Fairgrounds Racing Ban Gets Approved as Petition Tactics Face Scrutiny.

by Megan Podsiedlik, The Pamphleteer, Oct. 9, 2026- The Charter Revision Commission approved the ballot language for a referendum to ban racing at the Fairgrounds Nashville during a brief meeting yesterday. As of now, the measure can move forward if the Election Commission verifies that the petition in relation to the referendum has enough valid signatures. If all hurdles are cleared, the referendum would appear on next year’s ballot, giving Nashville voters the chance to decide the fate of racing at the historic Fairgrounds.

“There's not anything that can be said that's going to sway us one way or the other because what we have to do is basically just approve the ballot,” said Commission Chair Dewey Branstetter. The chair went on to explain that the commission’s role is simply "ministerial” before opening up public comment.

Jon Cooper, an attorney with Holland & Knight representing Decline to Sign, which opposes the proposed ban on racing at the fairgrounds, acknowledged that the referendum language clearly outlines the ban but questioned the validity of the petition process. 

“We have multiple examples of canvassers throughout the process misleading voters to get signatures by saying that Metro had already decided to tear down the racetrack and that this is going to get affordable housing in its place,” said Cooper. “I’ve submitted to Mr. Kyle, for the record, approximately one hour of video footage showing multiple instances of these falsehoods.”

John Spraggins, a local attorney and president of Care for Nashville, a group supporting the referendum, argued that the video should be stricken from the record. “That’s not really relevant to what this commission is considering today,” he said.

Councilmember Olivia Hill raised concerns about voter clarity after being approached four separate times to sign the petition.

“Each time I was approached [they] said, ‘Hey, would you like affordable housing in Nashville?’ and I said, ‘Sure!’” explained Hill. “And they're like, ‘Just sign this petition.’”

“I understand that your duty today is very ministerial in nature, but I do think it's one of the first steps during this entire process where something has been made crystal clear and truthful to the voters of Nashville,” said MNPS School Board member and former Metro Council member Zach Young, reiterating that the referendum would only end auto racing at the fairgrounds.

For funsies, Chair Branstetter asked legal counsel what would have happened if the commission had rejected the referendum language. Legal explained that the body would have been required to provide its exact reasoning. “And then we'd end up in Chancery Court on the other end,” said Branstetter, underscoring the justification for the body’s decision.

Top Stories

Trump Tariffs Caused a 2.9 Percent Increase in the Price of Many Everyday Item and Also Raises the Prices of Domestically Produced Goods, Federal Reserve Study Finds

by Rod Williams, Oct. 8, 2026 - It amazes me that many people still believe the exporting country pays tariffs when goods are imported into the United States. They do not. No matter how often President Trump says or implies they do, they simply do not. The importer pays the tariff. The importer could be a wholesaler who then sells his imported goods to a retailer, or a large company that imports and retails. In any event, when the retailer sells goods to the consumer, he passes on the tariff. 

Now, the wholesaler or the retailer may "eat" some of the tariffs. That is, they may lower their profit margin, or find cost savings elsewhere to avoid passing on the full cost of the tariffs. Also, the producer of the product or the exporter may lower the price at which they sell their product to the importer. So while a 100% of the tariff may not be added to the retail price, most of it is.  A recent study published by the New York Federal Reserve found that "a 10 percent increase in the duty rate pushes up import prices by 9.2 percent" (link page 10). So, 92% of the tariff is passed on to the consumer.

One thing people often don't think about or realize is that even if you buy goods made in America, increased tariffs raise the cost of those goods too. The study explains:

Tariffs also affect the prices of goods made in the U.S. This happens in two ways. First, many U.S. producers rely on imported parts and materials, so tariffs raise their cost of production. For example, a tariff on steel makes it more expensive to build a car in the U.S. We refer to this effect as the marginal cost channel. Second, when tariffs make imported goods more expensive, U.S. producers of competing goods face less pressure to keep their own prices down. We refer to this effect as the strategic complementarity channel. We find evidence that U.S. producers increased their prices at the factory gate because of both channels, and the marginal cost effect is the larger of the two.

This same study also found that President Donald Trump's tariff policies were responsible for keeping prices elevated across 67 categories of consumer goods. The research estimated that these items cost 2.9 percentage points more as of February 2026 due to the tariffs. 

The Consumer Price Index measures price changes over time. While there is a definition of inflation that is broader than prices increasing over time, for people who are not academic economists, it is fair to say the CPI measures inflation. There are other indexes that try to do the same, such as the Producer Price Index, but the most relied upon is the CPI. The CPI is produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS collects about 80,000 prices monthly from retail stores, service establishments, car dealers, doctors' offices, divorce lawyers, funeral homes, and almost every price that is part of a legal market transaction. I worked for the Consumer Price Index for several years and was a field officer collecting those prices. The prices are weighted to represent a typical urban market basket of goods. So, while you may purchase only one divorce and one funeral in your lifetime, you probably purchase milk and bread every week. The BLS has a bunch of statisticians and economists who figure out how to calculate the weights of the items in the basket. The U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) classifies all expenditure items into 8 major groups, which are further broken down into more than 200 detailed item categories. 

The recent Federal Reserve of New York study found that of the CPI's 200-plus categories of goods and services, the cost of 67 categories of goods was 2.9 percentage points higher as of February, thanks to Trump tariffs. It is a fact: tariffs are causing price increases. 

To read the full report, follow this link. 

Top Stories

 

Top Stories

Communist or Trump? The Game Show.

 

Top Stories

Where does the Government Obtain the Authority to Kill a Person Who is no Longer Poses an Immediate Threat

Michael Dioguardi

by Michael Dioguardi, Facebook, Oct. 1, 2026 - I oppose it on the Lockean delegation principle.

John Locke grounds legitimate government in the collective delegation of our natural right of self-defense. But that right permits the use of force to stop an unjust threat. It does not give an individual the authority to kill someone who has already been restrained and no longer poses an immediate threat. If government possesses only those coercive powers that individuals may legitimately delegate to it, then the death penalty appears to exceed that delegated authority.

Frédéric Bastiat reinforces this principle by describing government as the collective exercise of the individual right of lawful defense. Its legitimate function is therefore to protect each person’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property, rather than to exercise an independent power to initiate force against people who no longer pose a threat.

That is why I am less interested in opposing the death penalty on consequentialist grounds. My objection is more fundamental: I do not think the authority to execute can be derived from the limited authority individuals possess over one another in a free society.

The problem for those who want to apply this principle selectively is that it does not stop with the death penalty. Once you take seriously the proposition that government authority is limited to powers individuals can legitimately delegate, much of the interventionist state becomes difficult to justify. You cannot invoke the delegation principle when it produces a preferred conclusion and then set it aside when applying it would constrain taxation, regulation, redistribution, licensing, or other exercises of coercive government power.

That leaves you with a scattered collection of arguments about the death penalty, each attacking a different question: deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, proportionality, morality, and so forth. Those arguments may be worth debating individually, but they largely avoid the more fundamental question of where the government obtains the authority to kill a person who is no longer an immediate threat.

Michael Dioguardi is a residential property manager and independent blogger writing under the title Seeker of Liberty. Drawing on years of dedicated study of the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, landmark court decisions, and Austrian School economics, he analyzes contemporary challenges to individual liberty, institutional accountability, and economic stability. Michael resides in Nashville. 

#

The above essay is in response to an essay opposing the death penalty written by Mark Rogers. To see Mark Rogers essay and my comments on the death penalty, follow this link.

Top Stories

It is Time to End the Death Penalty

Mark Rogers

by Mark Rogers, Facebook, Oct. 1, 2026 -  How many more examples of unnecessary cruelty will Tennessee provide before the People demand an end to the stupid and wasteful use of the death penalty? Not only is the death penalty lousy public policy, but apparently, the Volunteer state can't even do it properly. 

It shouldn't be necessary to reiterate all the reasons the death penalty should be consigned to the ash heap of History but... as a public service...

1) The death penalty cannot be undone. The discovery of new evidence or the exposition of false evidence or the realization that police or prosecutors played fast and loose with the facts can't be redressed with an official "Ooopsie" and a large check. Mistakes are final. 

2) The death penalty prevents criminals from changing their lives and improving their worlds even from prison. I would think people who want law to reflect Christian Values would prefer a system that allows for criminals to come to Christ rather than die unchanged. 

3) The death penalty is applied unfairly. Poor and minority killers are far more likely to be sentenced to death than well-off white killers. The idea that the death penalty is Justice is a myth. 

4) The death penalty is not a measurable deterrent to future criminals. 

5) The ultimate argument for the death penalty is revenge. Revenge isn't Justice. Revenge isn't good public policy. Revenge at the price of an innocent life isn't the behavior of a Just or Good society. 

How many more innocent people need to die to satiate the lust of some people for 'revenge,' especially when they weren't harmed? How many more people who never had a chance in life must die for the same reason?

Mark Rogers has long been active in Republican Party politics and is an astute observer of political trends and events and Republican politics.  He is well known as a successful Republican campaign manager and political consultant. He has also served in government and the non-profit sector. He is currently exiled from the Republican Party. He lives in Nashville.

#

Comments by Rod Williams -I have changed my mind about the death penalty. I have been of the view that some crimes or so horrendous that the death penalty was justified, but I now think the death penalty should be abolished.  I find Mark Rogers's arguments above persuasive. 

In addition to the above arguments, I have changed my mind because it can take 30 years to carry out the sentence. Some people die on death row of natural causes, never executed. Sometimes the family of the victim dies before the sentence is carried out. If justice were swift, I would be less opposed. Rather than the family of the victim waiting thirty years for justice, and experiencing delay after delay, and the State and those opposing the carrying out of the sentence spending thirty years in court fighting over the carrying out of the sentence, would it not be better to just sentence the person to life in prison without the possibility of parole? I think it would.

Another reason I have become an opponent of the death penalty is because of the failure to successfully carry it out.  The State attempted to carry out the execution of Christa Pike on Wednesday night. She was given two doses of pentobarbital by injection, but her heart did not stop. The Knoxville Federal Public Defender’s Office immediately filed for a stay of execution; it was granted, and life-saving measures were administered to Pike.

This is the second botched execution in Tennessee this year. I cannot understand why it is so hard to kill someone. People die of accidental overdoses all the time. Since apparently there is a reason the process of ending a person's life is so difficult, I think it is cruel and inhuman to attempt the execution, fail, administer lifesaving treatments to save the life of the criminal, and then try again later. 

The Christa Pike story is horrendous. It was senseless murder carried out by young people ages 17 and 18. Pike killed another girl for trying to steal her boyfriend and then bragged about the killing and carried a piece of the girl's skull in her pocket as a souvenir. There is no excusing or justifying the murder or minimizing the evil that occurred. To read more about the case, follow this link. 

Top Stories

Charlie Hatcher Distances Himself from Trump, Scrubs Trump from His Campaign Materials

by Rod Williams, Sept. 29, 2026 - Across the nation, Republican candidates running for office in the midterm elections are trying to distance themselves from President Donald Trump. They are scrubbing references and images of Donald Trump from their websites, campaign materials, fundraising letters, and emails. Many are hoping Donald Trump does not come to their district to campaign for them.

Former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, who is running for Congress in Tennessee's fifth Congressional district, has changed his campaign slogan to remove a reference to President Donald Trump.

His former campaign slogan read “Pro-Gun. Pro-Life. Pro-Trump,” and appeared at the bottom of his campaign website. But the logo featuring the slogan has been removed from the website and fundraising emails. The slogan has been changed to read, "Pro-Gun, Pro-Life, Pro-Tennessee." 

It appears his campaign is panicking as he faces an incredibly strong challenge from Columbia Mayor Chaz Molder. Hatcher is running in a district Trump would have won by 20+ points, and yet polling shows Molder is within striking distance. 

The shift in Hatcher’s campaign slogan comes as Republicans nationwide grapple with backlash over the increase in gas and diesel prices, higher grocery prices, and inflation. Also, it seems that Trump's outrageous, erratic, and silly behavior and focus on things like the fight over the Kennedy Center and renaming bodies of water are turning people off, when what they think he should be focusing on is the economy. 

 I suspect that five weeks before the election is a little late to pretend you are not a Trumpinista.

Top Stories

The Coming Republican Revolt Against Tariffs

by Rod Williams, Sept. 27, 2026 - For decades, Republican Party politics has held that America and the world are better off with a free-trade policy. While many Democrats pandered to their union base and ran on a protectionist platform, when in office, most Democrats, like Republicans, advanced free trade.

If one looks back at NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), it was proposed by Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his 1980 presidential campaign. President George H.W. Bush negotiated it, and President Bill Clinton later slightly modified and amended it before signing it into law. It passed Congress with bipartisan support. 

Free trade has been the trajectory of the world since the days of Adam Smith, and it advanced until the Great Depression. Some would argue that the abandonment of free trade and the Smoot-Hawley tariffs was a major contributing cause of the Great Depression. 

After World War II, the liberalization of trade again advanced starting in 1947 when nations created the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to reduce tariffs and provide a legal framework for trade. Other agreements followed. Liberalizing trade was the bipartisan policy of the United States up until the time of President Trump and the start of the current trade wars.

All of this time, while trade liberalization policies advanced under both Democrats and Republicans, Republicans were stronger advocates for free trade than were Democrats. I have been dismayed by Republicans' abandonment of free trade. Along with support for tariff reductions and free trade, Republicans have abandoned many of the beliefs they once held dear. 

With the consequences of Trump's trade wars becoming more and more clear and Trump's popularity waning, will Republicans return to their decades-long support for free trade? Below are excerpts from an article recently appearing in The Wall Street Journal. It is by Phil Gramm and Donald Boudreaux. Phil Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University and the Mercatus Center. They argue that Republicans will come to their senses and return to advocating for free trade. While I am pessimistic about the future of our nation and the world, and wonder if the old order can be restored, this article provides reason for optimism. Below are excerpts:

... When Mr. Trump asserted executive authority to impose the highest tariffs in 90 years, Republican congressmen, though skeptical, remained silent. If tariffs hurt Republicans in the November elections as much as they have hurt the economy, the midterms could end up igniting a Reagan revival on trade, shifting the trajectory of the party and the country. Donald Trump’s tariffs are hurting Americans. Real economic growth is slowing, consumer prices rising, and real wages stagnating. Now the Republican Party is set to pay for it.

No American president was more passionate about trade liberalization than Ronald Reagan. He understood that free and open markets allow “more productive use of our nation’s resources, more rapid innovation, and a higher standard of living,” as he said in 1985. “The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides for human progress and peace among nations.”

Most Republicans in Congress favor free trade. ... The production disruptions and economic uncertainty that have come with Mr. Trump’s tariffs aren’t winning Americans over. ...  congressional Republicans, because of intimidation or party loyalty, failed to oppose Mr. Trump’s tariffs ... Americans have reaped enormous gains from the fall of protectionist barriers. Per capita gross domestic product has risen 367% in real purchasing power since 1947. 

.... The 2028 Republican primaries could be an opportunity for this Reagan trade revival to reassert control of the GOP. The right candidate could run on “affordability,” committing to overturn the Trump tariffs and differentiating himself from Trump protectionism and industrial policy. 

To read the full article, follow this link. 

Top Stories

Trump Loses. Banned News Outlets Return to White House After Judge Orders End to Ban

by Rod Williams, Sept 24, 2026 - I assume everyone who does not live under a rock by now knows that Trump's ban of CNN, MS NOW and Politico has been overturned by a Federal Judge, and those news outlets are back to covering the President. The judge ruled that the ban probably violated the Constitution.  The judge who made the ruling was a Trump appointee. I haven't heard the latest on this, but I am sure Trump will refer to him as a "lunatic far-left judge."  Trump will probably also attack him for not being loyal. That is the way Trump thinks. He doesn't respect loyalty to the Constitution or any principle; he expects personal loyalty to Donald Trump.

In making this ruling, the judge did not rule on the underlying merits of their removal but ruled that they had not been given due process and the opportunity to contest the order that revoked their White House press credentials. Trump has 14 days to appeal the judge's ruling.

Who knows if Trump will appeal; he may do something else reckless and stupid to simply change the subject. He is good at that. Maybe he will rename another body of water, intensify a trade war, or invade another country and will forget all about this. He is good at doing another outrageous thing so we cannot stay focused on the current outrageous thing.

If Trump pursues his attempt to ban these three outlets, I contend the news outlets will win on First Amendment grounds. Not everyone who claims to be a reporter can be granted access to the White House, of course, but viewpoint discrimination will not pass Constitutional muster. And, Trump said exactly why he was doing it. He might have gotten away with this if he had come up with some lame excuse about seeking greater diversity in the press corps and modifying the process of who gets White House credentials or some other BS, but he was in-your-face saying he was removing them because they were "Fake News," and they never said nice things about him.

To all my Facebook "friends" who were adamant that Trump had an absolute right to do this, I just wanted to say I was right and you were wrong. I still contend that if this is pursued, the news outlets will win on First Amendment grounds. 

Top Stories

In Warrantless ICE Construction Site Raid an American Citizen was Arrested and Detained Three Times

To read more about this story follow this link.

by Rod Williams, Sept. 24, 2026- The man pictured here is Leo Garcia Venegas. He is an American citizen who was arrested in warrantless immigration raids on construction sites in southern Alabama.  There was no reasonable suspicion that he was an illegal immigrant other than that he looks Hispanic. He has been detained and handcuffed three times by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, even though he had a valid REAL ID on all three occasions.  

This is not the only case of this happening. One example is that a North Carolina man who was arrested last year by immigration officers despite having a valid REAL ID, then dumped on the side of the road once the officers confirmed he was a U.S. citizen.

It is unknown how often this occurs. I would assume most people just accept it and don't file a lawsuit to get justice.  Many may be ill-equipped to seek justice, lacking the will or the finances. One has to assume that somewhere an American citizen is sitting in some African or Central American prison and no one knows where he is. 

From the comments I see on Facebook and other sites and from hearing MAGA-types express their glee at the cruelty of Trump's immigration policy, I assume many Americans do not care if the occasional American is picked up and detained. Many of those who like this kind of cruelty claim to love America and have made an icon out to the Constitution, but if it is other people whose 4th and 5th Amendments are being violated, they are okay with it. 

If you are okay with this type of thing happening, you should do some soul-searching. You should definitely stop claiming to love the Constitution; you don't. I am sure there are some people who celebrate this type of illegal, stormtrooper-type behavior who do love America. They love in a blood-and-soil manner, but do not love the creedal nation that is America, and the America that was that shining city on a hill. 

Top Stories

How Much More Should Americans Pay Per Year to Boost Domestic Manufacturing and Jobs.

Michael Dioguardi

by Michael Dioguardi, Facebook, Sept, 24, 2026- There is absolutely no reason to pay more for “policies aimed at bringing manufacturing home.”

The goal should not be to make Americans pay more so that politicians can say they brought manufacturing home. The goal should be to make the United States such an attractive place to invest that businesses choose to manufacture here because it makes economic sense.

That means removing the barriers that make production expensive: excessive regulation and permitting delays, restrictive zoning, inadequate infrastructure, high energy costs, occupational licensing barriers, distortions in the tax code, expensive healthcare, and policies that discourage capital investment. It means allowing businesses to build, hire, invest, innovate and expand without having to obtain a subsidy or protection from government.

That is very different from tariffs, subsidies and industrial policy. Those policies attempt to make domestic production artificially attractive by making foreign goods more expensive or transferring costs to taxpayers. The result is that Americans pay more for the privilege of producing something here.

A better objective is simple: make America more productive. If producing a good in America is the most economically efficient choice, capital will come here without being bribed. And if producing something elsewhere is more efficient, Americans should be able to benefit from that lower-cost production while American capital and workers move toward the activities where they are most productive.

Manufacturing can grow substantially without trying to recreate the manufacturing economy of the 1950s. In fact, the more important measure is not how many people we employ in factories, but how much productive capacity we can create with the labor and capital available to us.

The question should therefore not be, “How much are Americans willing to pay to bring manufacturing home?”

It should be, “What can we remove that is preventing Americans from profitably producing more at home?”

That approach does not require Americans to pay more. It is intended to make them richer.

Michael Dioguardi is a residential property manager and independent blogger writing under the title Seeker of Liberty. Drawing on years of dedicated study of the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, landmark court decisions, and Austrian School economics, he analyzes contemporary challenges to individual liberty, institutional accountability, and economic stability. Michael resides in Nashville. 

Top Stories

The Constitution won twice this week

by Rod Williams, Sept. 23, 2026 - If not for the Federal Courts, including the US Supreme Court, Donald Trump's authoritarian project would be much further along. The courts have frustrated Trump's trampling of the Constitution. While Congress has folded and will endorse and excuse any Trump excess, the Courts have held the line.

Some criticize the Courts for not doing more. When the Courts rule in a way someone doesn't like, they are often quick to denounce the Courts. They think the courts should be advancing policies which are popular, or with which they agree. I don't. The Courts are not a policy-making body, and they should not be. They are to call balls and strikes, not follow the polls or public opinion. I am much more concerned about process than policy. I do not want the Courts to be making policy. 

Traditionally, it has been liberals who believe the Courts should interpret the Constitution in light of current political values and should advance the cause of "social justice."  Liberals have believed in a "living Constitution." Conservatives, on the other hand, have traditionally been "originalists" or "textualists," and have believed the Constitution should be interpreted in light of what the founders intended. Now, however, many conservatives believe the Court should always vote with Trump. They seem to believe the Constitution should be interpreted to let Trump do whatever he wants.

We should be thankful for the Courts curtailing Trump's worst instincts and thankful to those who represented the plaintiffs in bringing suits. There are two organizations that I proudly support with my financial giving that are beating the Trump administration in the Courts.  One is FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), and the other is the Institute for Justice. 

I have been a supporter of these two organizations for years. I was supporting them before the era of Trump. Before Trump, they were usually fighting liberals and defending against constitutional violations perpetrated by liberal governments or universities and were considered conservative organizations. These two organizations now find themselves most often defending victims of Trump's constitutional violations. The organizations have not changed; the perpetrator of constitutional violations is now primarily the Trump administration. These organizations are consistently defending the Constitution, regardless of the political identity of the offender.

I know in the age of Trump many feel powerless in standing up to Trump. There are things one can do to make a difference, and one is to support the organizations that are battling Trump in the Courts. Please consider making a contribution to these two exemplary organizations.

Below is an email letter I received today from the Institute for Justice, detailing two recent victories for the Constitution and defeats for Donald Trump and those doing his bidding.

 Dear Mr. Williams,

As you know, we have a very busy fall here at IJ with our three upcoming Supreme Court arguments. But I am happy to report that we’ve already had a double win this week: two major victories defending the Fourth Amendment and holding government agents accountable when they violate our constitutional rights.

The first victory came in Alabama, where IJ defended Leonardo Garcia Venegas, an American citizen who was detained by federal immigration agents while working at construction sites—not once or even twice, but three times.

Twice last year, officers entered Leo’s private job sites without warrants, detained him, and refused to accept his REAL ID. Earlier this year, they followed him home and, despite his attempts to show his ID again, tackled, handcuffed, shackled, and locked him in the back of a car.

This week, a federal judge ordered immigration officers to stop conducting warrantless raids of construction sites, stop detaining people without individualized suspicion, and immediately release workers who present evidence of legality, including REAL IDs.

The second victory came from the 5th Circuit, where IJ client Mario Rosales challenged a traffic stop that never should have happened.

In 2022, Mario and his girlfriend, Gracie, were pulled over on a false pretext of not using a turn signal by officers fishing for evidence of crime. Officers detained Mario, questioned him, and frisked him without justification. The Constitution protects against this stop-first-justify-later form of policing.

Last year, Mario achieved a major victory when a federal district court ruled against the officers and the city of Alexandria, Louisiana, allowing Mario and Gracie’s lawsuit to proceed. But (of course), the officers appealed on the grounds of qualified immunity, arguing their search and detainment of Mario and Gracie was not clearly unconstitutional.

Yesterday, the 5th Circuit ruled that Mario can move forward with his claims and denied qualified immunity on the core Fourth Amendment violations at issue in his case.

These victories matter far beyond Leo and Mario. They reinforce that government officials can’t ignore constitutional limits simply because they find them inconvenient.

It’s been a very good week for liberty so far! Many thanks for your support 

Scott

Top Stories