Monday, March 30, 2015

The Left Finally Circling Like Sharks Around Sheriff Arpaio

When progressives can’t beat Republicans square and fair at the ballot box, they resort to dishonest Alinskyite tactics, such as character assassination and abusing the left-wing dominated legal system. They’ve been after America’s popular Sheriff Joe Arpaio for years and are finally circling around him like sharks. A local progressive writer for The Arizona Republic gleefully titled his column about the sheriff’s downfall earlier this month, “Would Sheriff Arpaio Look Pretty in Pink (Underwear)?”

Long known for his no-frills jails (pink underwear so gang members wouldn’t steal them), chain gangs and inexpensive meals (green bologna and water), Arpaio finally really infuriated the left when he started cracking down on illegal immigration in 2005. Arizona’s illegal immigration levels had reached epidemic levels, straining tax dollars. Working with conservative Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, the pair made a significant dent in the state’s illegal immigration. They lobbied to get four ballot initiatives against illegal immigration made into law in 2006. When left-leaning judges refused to enforce the new laws, the two fought back.

A flurry of investigations and legal actions began shortly afterwards. This is where the tide started turning against Arpaio, because the left controls much of the judiciary. It started with chipping away at the low-hanging fruit around Arpaio, lower-level employees who had no money, power or connections to defend themselves. The judges made findings against Arpaio, and the complicit state bar disbarred Thomas and another prosecutor (disclaimer: I was also targeted by the state bar as a low-level attorney for Arpaio at the time).

Read the rest of the article at Townhall

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Andrew Thomas launches new website, Stars & Banners

Harvard-law educated author Andrew Thomas has started a new website, Stars & Banners, featuring a focus on ISIS. Check it out and sign up for email updates.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Take this survey on gun control and the Second Amendment for an American University research project

If you believe in the Second Amendment and want your opinion heard in one of those "studies" we all hear about, please take this survey by the end of the weekend from Rachel Coyle, who is a graduate student there.

The project includes a survey on specific aspects of the gun rights debate, to gauge public opinion/perception and look for overlap between different segments of the conservative end of the political spectrum. 

The survey questions and response options are drawn from qualitative conversations with several hundred gun rights supporters on social media.

ALL survey responses will be completely confidential and the researcher will have no way of telling who responded to the survey or what any particular individual said.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

My boss is debating the Freedom From Religion co-President Thursday night at ASU

Free and open to the public

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Obama ignores illegal immigration laws - except to target Mormon business that donated to Romney

This is sickening, and it is happening regularly
under this administration. Obama refuses to enforce illegal immigration laws, except to target people he doesn't like. The owners of Valley View Building Services apparently had some illegal immigrants working for them. When it was discovered, the owners promptly fired the manager in 2010 who had hired them. That wasn't good enough for the DOJ. Even though the owners were complying with the law, using E-Verify when hiring employees, Obama's DOJ still prosecuted them and is now ordering them to pay at least $250,000 as part of a settlement to get the DOJ off their backs. The owners have already spent $300,000 in legal fees. It is frightening that this kind of selective justice is occurring.

Click here to read the article

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Steve Pierce's brother Tyler remembers him (sons of Senator Steve Pierce)

                         UPDATE #1
Posted by his brother, Tyler Pierce, 3/21/15 at 2:40 pm:

A cool breeze blew across the hills of Williamson Valley. It carried with it a peaceful, gentle soul. Over the Santa Maria mountains the soul traveled, joyous and eternally free. And then it was gone. My brother Steve has found his way. And now we must find ours. If you knew Steve, gather today in remembrance. Tell stories of a beautiful man who touched us with his kindness, humor and love. Tell stories of a little boy who never stopped playing, reminding us that growing up is not as important as having fun. Please do not call on the family at this time. We know you are with us and with Steve. Please pass this on to friends of Steve.

It's with a heavy heart, that we have to say goodbye to a wonderful man. Please pray for his family. If you can, let's help with these expenses for the family. Thank you.

Steve Pierce, owner of Onverse, was in a horrific automobile accident on March 18, 2015 and is recovering at John C. Lincoln hospital.  He  suffered a head injury, ruptured spleen and broken pelvis.  Please join us in raising money to help cover medical expenses as well as support for his new wife, Amilyn Davidson Pierce and unborn Son.  Your support and prayers are greatly appreciated. 

Click here to contribute on Go Fund Me

Sinking Ship: More accusations of plagiarism at The Arizona Republic

Greg Patterson over at Espressopundit has done a good job chronicling the demise of The Arizona Republic over the last few years. It is a dinosaur, in an age when most print newspapers are either dying out or metamorphosing. Stubbornly, the Republic sticks to its far left bias, not even attempting any middle, moderate ground in a red state. At the same time, no coincidence, its print version continues to shrink as do its subscribers. Most locals I know get their news from the Internet instead now, or if they subscribe to a print newspaper anymore, get The Arizona Capitol Times, which makes some attempt to be fair. 

Recently, cries of plagiarism have been cropping up at the Republic, signs they must be so desperate they are hiring inexperienced reporters (ahem - interns) who are plagiarizing to come up with content. The pay for reporters has become so low now that it is difficult to continue a print publication on the old model. Yet the Republic won't change. Respected Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio is the latest victim of this plagiarism, and he's sick and tired of it. 

He writes,

Arizona Republic bias and plagiarism: Arizona Republic reporter Dustin Gardiner plagiarized material I produced. I raised this concern and concerns of reporter bias last year-still no response. I even took the step of meeting with their executive team last month. Gardiner took work I produced from the Top 50/100 Phoenix Pensioners and then called it his own under a different title. Work production their editor, in a phone call acknowledged as mine prior to running their story. Will they actually investigate these ethic charges and continue to use my material or will they “Circle the Wagons." Additionally, here is one social media post we presented at the executive team meeting at the Republic showing bias. We presented other social media posts by this reporter as well. This one just shows his thinking and his clear bias. What reporter would post this and what organization that claims to be “objective” would allow this from an embedded reporter? Does this type of reporting by your reporter fall in line with your social media policy? Arizona Republic: It has now been 1 month since our meeting, when am I going to get a response? By the way I am not going to let this go and will continue point out this clear bias with your reporting until I receive a thought out response.


Sal DiCiccio

Dustin Gardiner retweeted
David Leibowitz @leiboaz · Nov 4
Out hiking and passed a snake. Shockingly, it was not Sal DiCiccio.
2 retweets 4 favorites
3 Retweets 2
• Favorites 4

Saturday, March 21, 2015

School Choice Litigation is Winning

by Brian Symes

The Franklin Institute recently put on a seminar in Phoenix, Arizona, to educate bloggers about school choice. Traditional public schools continue to go downhill even as the amount spent on them increases. In Arizona, 45 percent of the state’s budget goes to education, and there are never any cuts in spending, despite the misleading hype otherwise. This is unsustainable and evidence the system is not working.
Enter school choice. There are more charter schools and private schools than ever today, and many of them are surpassing the traditional public schools, providing a better education for poor and minority children in particular, who have been less likely in the past to be able to afford such options. However, in order for them to access these alternative schools, they need to be able to transfer the money that would have paid for their traditional education to these new schools. Otherwise, the right to choose is illusory, since their parents lack the financial means. Sadly, these students are facing roadblocks around the country, as powerful teachers unions fight back using the legal system to prevent the students from leaving the failing public schools.
Tim Keller, managing attorney for the Institute for Justice in Phoenix, relayed the history of school choice litigation. Much of it involves state constitutional challenges. Originally, the legal battles were fought over the U.S. Constitution, particularly allegations of church and state violations. The Institute for Justice successfully won two battles in the U.S. Supreme Court over that challenge, defending school vouchers in Milwaukee in 1998 and then Cleveland’s voucher system in 2002. The high court held that as long as a school is neutral toward religion, and parents have a genuine choice where to enroll their children, vouchers pass constitutional muster.
Interestingly, some religious schools have changed over time and are only nominally religious now. Anti-Catholic bigotry toward school choice in years past has dissipated in part because of this demographic trend.
In recent years, legal challenges have been made to school choice claiming it violates the Blaine amendments of state constitutions. Blaine amendments prohibit government funds for sectarian (religious) schools. So far, the Institute for Justice has prevailed on these challenges, because the money doesn’t go directly to a religious school. Instead, it operates more like food stamps or health insurance; each parent gets to decide where to allocate their child’s money.
Opponents of school choice have also launched legal challenges claiming that the education clauses in most state constitutions which require the state to create and fund public schools mean the state must exclusively fund only traditional public schools. In reality, Keller says, the education clauses operate as just a baseline; a state can create more options on top of it.
School choice opponents have also challenged the legislation on “Mickey Mouse” grounds – a catchall phrase for anything they can think of. These include local control provisions and single-subject rules. NEA General Counsel Bob Chanin once said he intended to challenge school choice everywhere on these grounds. Fortunately, he retired in 2009.
There have been a couple of setbacks in the state battles. Ironically, they have both come from the states known for having the most school choice. An Arizona court struck down Arizona’s voucher system in 2009, claiming it directed money to religious schools, violating the state constitution. Educational savings accounts were formed to replace the vouchers, and have withstood constitutional challenges. The Florida Supreme Court struck down a proposed voucher system in 2006, claiming it would violate the state constitution’s education clause. But school choice lives on there, also through ESAs.
ESAs are proving to be the way to withstand legal challenges instead of vouchers, because the money isn’t going directly to an alternative school, but to the parent first, who then directs it to a school of their choice or to education related products and services. When the Institute of Justice was litigating this in Arizona, left-leaning Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Hurwitz asked union lawyers on the other side, “Would you be ok if parents were just given the money, and told they had the option to use it wherever?” They responded yes – and ironically that is how the idea of ESAs came about.

Friday, March 6, 2015

Refuting myths: HB2629 to eliminate the mandatory State Bar does not violate the Arizona Constitution

Provided by an attorney who is very knowledgeable about the Bar, the Arizona Constitution and the Arizona Supreme Court. Provided anonymously out of fear of retaliation by the state bar. Please spread far and wide.

MYTH 1 The Arizona Supreme Court is granted power to license attorneys by the Arizona Constitution in Article VI §1, and HB2629 will take away this power, violating the Constitution.

RESPONSE The bill does not take away the State Supreme Court’s authority to license attorneys. Creating rules that expand that power are not unlimited and are not permitted to violate other constitutional rights. The rules created requiring bar membership are inconsistent with the Constitution that states no person shall be required to be a member of a labor organization.

MYTH 2 A mandatory bar association does not violate the right to work in
Article VI §1 of the Arizona Constitution.

RESPONSE Yes it does. The rules created requiring bar membership are inconsistent with the Constitution that states no person shall be required to be a member of a labor organization.

MYTH 3 HB2629 conflicts with Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 31(b), which states in part that: “no person shall practice law in this state or represent in any way that he or she may practice law in this state unless the person is an active member of the state bar.”

The background assumes that “under this authority” is unlimited. The authority to regulate the practice of law and the courts should not extend to matters that are unnecessary. For example, there are supreme court rules that legislate non attorney matters under the same authority as well as insulate bar staff from any liability. Rule 48 gives immunity to people even if they slander or falsify a bar complaint against an attorney. “Communications to the court, state bar, committee, presiding disciplinary judge, acting presiding disciplinary judge, hearing panel members, settlement officers, mediators, the client protection fund, the peer review committee, the fee arbitration program, the committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct, monitors of the Member Assistance or Law Office Management Assistance Programs, state bar staff relating to lawyer misconduct, lack of professionalism or disability, and testimony given in the proceedings shall be absolutely privileged conduct, and no civil action predicated thereon may be instituted against any complainant or witness. Members of the board, members of the committee, the presiding disciplinary judge, hearing panel members , the peer review committee, client protection fund trustees and staff, fee arbitration committee arbitrators and staff, the Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct, monitors of the Member Assistance or Law Office Management Assistance Programs, state bar staff, and court staff shall be from suit for any conduct in the course of their official duties.”

The courts also use their power to adopt laws such as Rule 123. Access to the Judicial Records of the State of Arizona. (a) Authority and Scope of Rule. Pursuant to the administrative powers vested in the supreme court by Article VI, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution, and the court's inherent power to administer and supervise court operations, this rule is adopted to govern public access to the records of all courts and administrative offices of the judicial department of the State of Arizona. The court has legislated various areas of public records.

MYTH 4 In Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820, 844-45 (1961), the U.S. Supreme Court held that attorneys can be required to join mandatory bar associations with fees.  

RESPONSE The Lathrop decision has been significantly watered down as bar associations have proven to act politically. Most importantly, Lathrop did not deal with a constitutional right to not join an organization. This decision 50 years ago has been altered and did not take into account the Right to Work constitutional amendment.
MYTH 5 HB2629 has no context outside a courtroom, so it is only a procedural law, which infringes on the authority of the State Supreme Court to regulate.

RESPONSE The bill has a very important context outside a courtroom - it deals with mandatory membership of all attorneys regardless of whether they ever step foot in a courtroom, are retired or are disabled. The bar membership finances services well beyond the oversight of the licensing requirements, including controversial lobbying and political activities that many attorneys fundamentally disagree with.

MYTH 6 If there is a conflicting rule already created by the Arizona Supreme Court, that rule will control.

RESPONSE This conclusion ignores when the rule is unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court decided only men could practice law, everyone would agree it is unenforceable.

The State Bar Association does not fit the description of a “labor organization” as provided in A.R.S. § 23-1301.A.R.S. § 23-1301 defines a labor organization as: “any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment.” The Association does not deal with individual employers or bargain the conditions of attorney employment. Instead, it serves as the legal profession's regulatory agency. This is a different function from that of the employer-employee relationship to which the constitutional right-to-work provision and the statutory definition apply. 1987 Ariz. Op. Att'y Gen. 201 (1987)

RESPONSE The conclusion is false. No Arizona court has addressed the issue . The US Supreme Court in Keller v. State Bar of California certainly saw the similarities when it specifically did not address a challenge as not being properly before it on the idea that “they cannot be compelled to associate with an organization that engages in political or ideological activities beyond those for which mandatory financial support is justified.”

CONCLUSION The State Bar is a labor organization and the Supreme Court does not have unlimited rule making power to circumvent the Right to Work constitutional protections.


Thursday, March 5, 2015

Exposing the myth that eliminating a mandatory State Bar will cost more money

Analysis from an attorney: See the 2013 charts below with independently-obtained data from other jurisdictions indicating the assessed costs (AZ earmarked for discipline expenses aren't noted). The amounts are far below what Arizona lawyers now pay for regulation/discipline PLUS a bloated bar bureaucracy with well paid management. I don't know where the State Bar CEO got his numbers claiming there would be 60 to 65 additional state personnel. 

In 2013, the Bar claimed the cost of lawyer regulation was $4.67 million.  Dues brought in $9.3 million that same year. Half the dues went to non-regulatory matters.  Even in the half that went to regulatory matters, it is likely that there are parts of the $220,000 paid to CEO John Phelps in 2013. Here is his inflated compensation: 
JOHN F. PHELPS   CEO/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR   $180,412.reportable compensation from the organization plus  $39,518 other compensation from the organization and related organizations. 

Click here for a comparison of how outrageously high Arizona State Bar costs are relative to other states.

An attorney explains why we need HB2629 to eliminate the mandatory State Bar association

The attorney who wrote this up is unnamed, in order to avoid retaliation by the State Bar, which is going all out to try and defeat this necessary legislation. Please spread this far and wide so the public is educated.

(1) This important legislation affirms the state constitutional powers of the supreme court with respect to regulating the practice of law in Arizona but equally importantly, frees Arizona lawyers from coerced membership in a draconian state bar association.

(2) Nineteen jurisdictions across the U.S. have voluntary bars including: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Vermont. By separating the respective roles and responsibilities, the state supreme courts in those jurisdictions handle licensing, regulating and disciplining while the voluntary bars serve member interests through optional programs, services and activities.

(3) The Bill conclusively resolves the implicit conflict of interest and the irreconcilable tension between the mandatory bar in Arizona whose purpose is "to protect and serve the public" with that of a professional association whose purpose is to serve its members.

(4) The Arizona Legislature still has an important role to play with respect to matters of statewide concern, including general lawyer regulation, a fact traceable to the original incorporation of the Arizona Bar in 1933 through the Arizona Legislature. Indeed, for more than 50 years in Arizona, the state bar and supreme court were jointly empowered to regulate legal practice in the state. And not long ago, as one example, the Arizona Legislature enacted A.R.S. 12-2701, which codified the unauthorized practice of immigration and nationality law and established penalties for violations. See

(5) And above all else, this Bill is about protecting individual First Amendment freedoms violated by compelled association and by member subsidies of compelled speech. Members of the Arizona Legislature take an oath to uphold the Constitution and mandatory bar membership violates the First Amendment. And so more than simply a separation of powers issue, legislators should come down on the side of individual rights versus institutional ones. Indeed, under recent U.S. Supreme Court case law, mandatory membership associations are permissible -- but only when there is a compelling state interest involved and when the regulatory purposes are achieved by the least restrictive means. The fact that 19 states have voluntary bars and that each of those jurisdictions have robust regulatory schemes involving their lawyers means that this is achievable without the necessity of a mandatory bar association. (The U.S. Supreme Court case is Knox v. SEIU No. 10–112, 567 U.S. 310 (2012), citing Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 623 (1984) "mandatory associations are permissible only when they serve a “compelling state interes[t] . . . that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.” )

Ted Nugent to speak at Maricopa County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

An Arizona resident explains why HB2629 is necessary to make the State Bar voluntary

This letter was sent by an individual to state legislators, urging them to pass HB2629:

I own a home in the Biltmore area, pay Arizona property taxes, I have an Arizona car registration.  With Arizona family and friends who I see affected by HB 2629, I want to express my support of this bill.  Here are the reasons that, over time, I have come to realize that the best use of Arizona resources is to pass this bill: 

1.  Every citizen of the United States has a right to free speech in most areas, but Arizona lawyers currently don’t have free speech rights with the state bar.  Lawyers are prosecuted for publicly disagreeing with judicial decisions.  To prosecute a lawyer for that disagreement is to impair the lawyer’s ability to practice law, to generate new legal precedent and this impairs their ability to serve the public.  To prosecute a lawyer’s free speech rights therefore actually harms the public the Arizona State Bar insists that it wants to serve.  The State Bar’s message is to go out and serve the public, but only to an extent. 

2.  I have recently learned in my research that 19 Other jurisdictions in the Country have voluntary bars.  That is nearly one-half the nation's state bars.  The ones that are involuntary do not prosecute lawyers as harshly.  Arizona prosecutes more harshly and proactively than any other.  I see my Arizona attorney contacts obtaining more out of state education and certifications and currently, electing not to invest in the Arizona legal community to the extent they could.  This is not an unwise investment.  Arizona may be business friendly, but Arizona is NOT attorney business friendly.  There is a major difference between the two.  Arizona attorneys deserve the same business friendly climate that Arizona offers other non-lawyer businesspeople.  

3.  The State Bar of Arizona is out of sync with the way the lawyers of today practice.  A recent article shows Arizona lawyers are working in spaces of 600 square feet or less.  Lawyers looking for space, however, will not lease from the State Bar’s plentiful EMPTY office space (which they fund with dues) because no lawyer wants to rent space next to the State Bar.  That would be like Jaws' next meal taking up residence next to Jaws.  The State Bar occupies a building with high vacancy rates while lawyers in Arizona work with less physical space.  Also, many State Bar attorney investigators have never practiced privately as a solo practitioner or small to mid-size firm lawyer in a successful law practice before joining the State Bar.  They don’t know how to balance the ethical rules against the everyday practicalities of running your own business.   Worse, State Bar executives consistently report higher pay than most small firm and solo Arizona attorneysThis enormous salary difference makes the State Bar totally out of touch with the very Bar members it most consistently prosecutes and investigates.  (see:

4.  No man can serve two masters and the State Bar believes it is the one exception.  The Arizona State Bar wants to serve the public with a secondary purpose of serving the members it seeks prosecute.  Its programs offered to assist lawyers are not insulated and many people who have worked for their attorney assistance program left and started their own ventures. State Bar services - if offered - are going unused, much like any other unused public service program. 

5. Like with any other important legislation, if this is passed, it will require some adjustment.  It may “need some re-working” as one legislator mentioned - but then so did Obamacare.  We had to pass the Obamacare bill to find out “what it says,” based on Nancy Pelosi’s explanation. 

When slavery ended, schools were de-segregated, women began voting, or wage laws were passed, things did not fall into place overnight.  In fact, today, there are still billboards on the I-10 interstate in Arizona alerting people to the possibility of human trafficking and slavery.  This adjustment is worth the brief discomfort and possibly temporary uneven application because it protects the members of the public who protect everyone else.  When police, doctors and politicians get into trouble, they turn to the absolute privilege of confiding in a lawyer.  Lawyers perform an enormous service to the public, and like any office, can run into personal and professional conflicts.  Lawyers too merit a place to turn and that place is not offered by the State Bar.  

6.  If the purpose of the State Bar is to "weed out the bad apples," there are far more effective weeding methods.  There are very, very few lawyers - just as there are very few people serving in politics and law enforcement or education - who went into their service because they wanted to have a lot of power and really use it to hurt people.  People who go into these fields with a lack of conscience are possibly sociopathic, but it doesn’t take a State Bar to weed them out.  A personality test or evaluations by professionals with consent of the applicant that are administered with the Character and Fitness examination can more effectively preempt.  Many lawyers got into their business because we wanted to effect changes.  Lawyers want to make a positive difference.
I have seen John Phelps's memo to the Asian Arizona State Bar Association.  Here are my responses to his concerns:

"It would grow state government – We believe 60-65 positions would have to transfer from the bar to the court to create a lawyer regulation department. That doesn’t include the cost of IT, HR and management support, along with the expense of housing, furniture, computers and software licensing plus putting those employees in the state retirement system. We’re also not convinced that the state could do it cheaper than the bar. The cost would likely simply be passed along to attorneys in the form of a licensing fee, but why make regulating attorneys more expensive?" 
My response:  The public is being served by lawyer regulation, so public tax dollars can be used toward this regulation.  IT, HR and other support can call on Arizona local businesses, pumping more dollars into our local economy.  The employees may or may not have to be in the State Retirement system.  Whether the state can do it cheaper than the bar is beside the point.  There are over six million people in Arizona.  In 2013 there were 24.46 lawyers per 10,000 residents in Arizona, or a total of 16,208 attorneys.  At $500 each in bar dues each year, that is $8,104,000.  With 6,626,624 people in Arizona, that is a $1.22 increase in taxes to regulate all those attorneys.  Did John Phelps even do his math?

"It’s a solution in search of a problem – During the Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Farnsworth called the bar political and dominated by large law firms. Because of US Supreme Court rulings, the bar does not take a stand on political issues. Currently our board has 30 members, of which two are from large firms. In fact, we have far more small and solo attorneys on our board. Rep. Farnsworth didn’t detail what he believes are our political activities. The reality is that we’re a lot more boring than people think."
Rep. Farnsworth is correct.  If the Bar is so boring, then how is it using a revenue of over $8,104,000 per year?  Why are more than eight executives being paid more than $100,000.00 at the State Bar?  They must be doing something more than being boring to earn those salaries.

"Will it improve consumer protection? – We’re concerned that moving this function to the state will create budget constraints that will ultimately lead to diminished efforts to protect the public."
Consumer protection can be improved by less restrictive measures.  Those measures include increased testing for applicants.  Moving the function to the state, assessing a tax increase of a mere $5.00 per Arizona resident, could actually quadruple the resources currently available for attorney regulation.
But the question comes back:  Is this even necessary?  Are attorneys, the people who give absolute privilege, so inherently bad that they have to essentially build their own coffins by paying for their own discipline?  Don't many more than not actually go through extensive schooling and contribute even more extensively to the economy while building careers of creating new ways for people to live, resolve problems and do business?