Jorge Cardinal Bergolio of Buenos Aires becomes the 265th to wear the shoes of Peter, taking the reigns of the stressed Catholic church as Pope Francis.

He becomes the first non-European pope since Peter founded the Church.  He’s the first from South America; the first from the Americas, and the first to take his regnal name in honor of the co-founder of the Society of Jesus Francis Xavier. He is the first Jesuit pope.

A humble man who gave up his limousine and driver and reported to his office by taking the bus with the people he served, Bergolio is very conservative, upholding the church’s position on abortion, homosexuality, and civil rights.  Though of Italian roots, his life has been spent as a conservative within the Jesuit order, and a leader in the Catholic faith throughout South America.

Many American and European Catholics had hoped for a pope that would liberalize the faith, allow priests to marry, accept homosexuals into the faith and take a more secular view of abortion.  This pope is more likely to disappoint them, but as time moves forward these things may still come to pass. At ages 76, Bergolio may not be pope more than 15 years, a period when new cardinals, and existing ones may evolve in their positions on these and many others.

His papacy may be expected to change much in the administration of the Church, improving many of the governance issues plaguing the Vatican.  We expect a very tough stance on other crises, such as paedophilia and sexual scandals.

Francis leads a population of more than 1.3 Billion people on this planet, and is the only religious leader whose impact crosses continents to almost every nation.  As pope, Francis will have the ear of every political leader, and the influence to change politics throughout much of the world.

“The United States was founded by the brightest people in the country – and we haven’t seen them since.”

Isn’t it amazing that the brightest in our history had no phones, yet coordinated a war, ran a do-something Congress and led a revolution. No Facebook, Tweets or computers, yet with a quill pen and ink they managed to communicate a body of thought to last hundreds of years. One of them discovered electricity, but there were no wires then, so they read by candlelight. Still, they saw more; did more than we do with power, the ability to travel the globe and to read any book electronically.

Yet these founders were capable, and with our modern lifestyle, technology and conveniences, we have a do-nothing Congress, largely dim-witted and stupid. How can we elect people who don’t even know the basic tenets of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold?

Today, we’ve gone from a nation of great promise and wealth to one that can’t even approve a budget. We’ve gone from leadership the likes of Washington, Franklin, Adams and Jefferson to Palin, Cantor, Bachmann and Romney. Such is the rate of American progress in the past 236 years.

In case you’re asking, yes, we are endorsing Obama/Biden for Re-Election because they embody the intellect of our founders, putting America first before corporate or personal greed.

We don’t believe Mr. Romney has what it takes to be President.  Not because of Bain’s outsourcing of jobs, nor his unacceptable tax policies, but because he hasn’t the motivation, nor the support team behind him, nor even a solid Republican base such as other great Republicans like Eisenhower,  Nixon and Reagan.   The political dissent within the Republican Party today and their confused, misdirected leadership will make a Romney presidency nearly impossible to succeed.

The pressure he’d face to cut taxes, reduce spending, and to manage the economy on Tea Party principles will unquestionably result in the further deterioration of the national economy with serious impact globally as well as invasion of rights, forcing religious belief into law – the antithesis of the principles set forth by the Founding Fathers.   We see this today in the mis-guided position of a chicken restaurant chain.  Under a Romney presidency, Congress will likely attempt to, and may succeed at allowing companies to enforce prejudices, unraveling the efforts of the past 50 years of civil rights, a movement originally pushed by  great Republicans like Lincoln and Eisenhower.

Is this what our fathers and grandfathers fought for?

No matter what many members of both the House and Senate, or political candidates, believe or say, repealing Federal law is not easy.  Even when a political party takes full control following disliked laws from a previous Congress, repeal is incredibly rare.  We must all now simply accept that this is the law of the land, deemed fully constitutional by the ultimate arbiters of what is or is not legal.  The time for debate and political contention over this issue is over.

Many a political conservative is seeing their party focused more on fighting this issue than helping millions of Americans suffering in a depressed economy, creating jobs and a better business environment. They’re going centrist and planning to vote for the ones who make the most sense for economic growth – in this case, Obama.  To many moderate and conservative Republicans, that’s never going to be any party whose purpose is negativity rather than protecting Americans first.

Ultimately their decision had to balance the legality (constitutionality) with the good of the people.  Somewhere in their minds must have been the fact that universal healthcare was a Republican ideal fought for originally by Teddy Roosevelt.  Even in the liberal, Democratic era of Franklin Roosevelt, a national healthcare plan couldn’t be enacted.  For more than 100 years, this issue has been a festering sore, made more painful by the fact that smaller nations without our resources provided healthcare universally.

With that understanding, Republicans still have many points upon which to fight President Obama and Democrats in this election cycle.  However, they have an obligation to Americans and indeed themselves, to stop the fighting now on this topic, and move forward to the more important issues, such as economics, improving the job market, and providing a more productive environment for business.

The President and his party are being handed several winning causes by the Republicans.  For one thing, fighting to repeal Obamacare in light of the ruling seems indicative of the failure to focus on positive thinking.  While Republicans love Ronald Reagan, they’re forgetting, though Obama is not, that Reagan won millions of Democrats and Independents by inspiring positive goals for the nation following an economic recession. As long as Obama continues being inspirational and focused on Americans first, he’s going to do as well as Reagan.

Another issue in Obama’s favor, presented by the opposition is the recent attacks on the Fast and Furious scandal.  Dozens of Republican pundits and former Presidential candidates came out swinging on this issue last weekend, citing Watergate and Nixon as a benchmark comparative.   Is it really wise to suggest that the benchmark for Presidential scandal is something that has been a black-mark for Republicans for nearly 40 years?  Democrats can easily point to the fact that if Nixon or Watergate are the standard, then it only shows that Fast and Furious doesn’t come close to the Republican standards.

Lastly, the House Republicans holding the Attorney General, Eric Holder, in contempt, demonstrates its contempt for African-Americans, and their willingness to politicize anything negative for political gain.  That seems a fool’s errand, given the number of quality arguments they could be making on economics, financial reform, employment and other issues.  Obama and his people can easily point out that the first sitting Cabinet member to be held in contempt is also the first black Attorney General.  That’s a win-win for Obama as it will easily rally the troops among the ethnic communities.   Holder’s not going to be forced to resign, and even if he were to do so, it would be after the election, so the effort is essentially both moot and counter-intuitive.

Fighting Obama on same-sex marriage is also moot, as he did not introduce Federal legislation on this issue, merely expressing an opinion of a personal nature.  However, keeping their bent for negativity, many Republicans went screaming into the night that Obama is turning America gay.   Meanwhile, former Vice President Dick Cheney, the Conservative’s conservative, celebrated the wedding of his daughter Mary to her long term life-partner, in a perfectly legal same-sex marriage in Washington, DC.

Until and unless Republicans focus on the real issues affecting the average American, the message of fighting for the sake of fighting will not help them win votes, but may help them win the animosity of many within their own party.  While the election of Reagan created Reagan Democrats, Obama has comparably created Obama Republicans, largely with the help of the Republicans themselves.

Corporations, like people are required to pay taxes, a fundamental criteria for being deemed to have the same rights as citizens.  However, religious institutions are tax-exempt and thus, we hold, exempt from the same rights and therefore prohibited from spending any money in any manner in political campaigns or elections of any type.

An example of this is the effort to pass California’s Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage.  The Mormon church, based in Utah, with very few members located in California spent $20 Million to pass the legislation, bolstered comparably by the Catholic Knights of Columbus, another not-for-profit tax exempt religious institution.

Should any institution gaining a direct tax benefit or, indeed Federal grant money, contracts or other benefits from the government spend its funds in a political campaign, whether it’s a legislative issue or the election of a particular candidate.

It’s not just about same-sex issues.  Women’s reproductive rights are always being subjected to legislative scrutiny and legislation being influenced by religious institutions funding lobbying efforts to alter the rights of women.  While we’re not taking a position in favor of, or against abortions, the question is truly about the dollars and sense of any tax-exempt entity being deemed in the same manner as a profit-making corporation.

In political campaigns, should tax-exempt institutions, whether religious or not, be allowed to fund either campaigns of candidates or political advertising to influence any vote?

Do we not risk such institutions attempting to influence and change laws that would potentially benefit their members, their churches or businesses that may belong to the institution?  If an organization does sponsor legislation that is particularly beneficial to its members or position and financial benefit is gained, this is clearly harmful to the taxpayer and likely to the average citizen.

We could see companies benefit indirectly from laws passed or candidates who support efforts to provide government contracts, grants and low interest loans through religious or non-profit entities.  Ultimately, this could result in far greater annual cost to the American taxpayer than the cumulative earmarks Congress passed over the past five decades.

Could a defense contract be won or influenced by churches or non-profits influencing the election or re-election of a candidate favorable to the contractor?

If corporations as profitable institutions are unrestricted under the Citizens United decision, most assuredly, any entity that receives a tax benefit or contracts from government, even if they’re for profit must be exempted from the decision.  Essentially, Justice Stevens, now retired and in his 90′s pointed out recently in a speech and written articles that this is critical.  While the Supreme Court has ruled, it doesn’t prevent Congress from enacting legislation to curb the overall effect and limiting this right to companies that have no direct financial gain at present from government.

We believe any company obtaining government contracts should be exempted, as well as any non-profit entity, religious or not, obtaining a tax exemption of any kind.  Likely, Congress will not pass such a law, but it’s likely the Court will be forced to rule against itself in the future when some scandal arises as a result of the misguided Citizens United decision.

Let’s not forget that when a president is sworn in, he takes an oath of office in which he commits to uphold the Constitution.  One provision of that is the Equal Protection clause and he’d be derelict in his duty if he did not announce his support of this issue for the denial of marriage rights clearly violates that clause.

The conservative religious right has come out swinging against him, even within his own faith. The claim is that his support of this issue is somehow going to adversely affect the religious rites of marriage. The liberal left is screaming that he’s not promoting a new equal rights amendment and overturning the Defense of Marriage Act.

There is confusion apparently between the right to marry and the rites of marriage and millions of Americans have heard this confused message recently from their preachers, ministers, vicars and priests.  So let’s set this record straight.

The rite of marriage in a religious context is a ceremony performed in accordance with religious traditions reputed to go back 5,000 years. The right to marry is a civil matter and the license to wed is granted by the state, not the church.

In none of the states where gay marriage is legalized, nor in any other country where it’s legal, has any minister or priest, any church or synagogue been compelled by law to perform any rite of marriage they feel violates their religious freedoms and ecclesiastic traditions.  The only ones compelled by law to perform marriages between same-sex couples are judges and civil authorities, such as mayors and city clerks.

The civil ceremony isn’t really a ceremony as much as it is a legal contract between two parties acknowledged solely by government authority with no religious implications whatsoever. Churches and religious institutions remain protected from the government imposing laws upon religious institutional practices as guaranteed in the Constitution.

None of the same-sex marriage laws anywhere in the world compel religious institutions to accept or recognize the legal standing of gay couples.  So in truth, the right to marry has nothing to do with the rites of marriage in any manner whatsoever.

While Newsweek incorrectly referred to President Obama as “The First Gay President” on its cover of May 14th, 2012, the simple truth is that the title goes more appropriately to James Buchanan, predecessor of Abraham Lincoln, who’s romance with an Alabama US senator was widely known and accepted.  Even in the 1840s before Buchanan was in office, the two were known as “Buchanan and his wife”.   Referring to Obama in this context is simply the magazine pandering for increased sales to the religious conservatives audience it’s trying to capture from Fox News.

The baseless fear of same-sex marriage affecting the religious rites of marriage is preposterous, ridiculous and infantile.  Moreover, the hatred espoused by many ministers from the pulpit against one group of people in this nation, some even calling for the death of all people of the LGBT community, is inherently anti-Christian.   It violates, in every possible sense, the teachings of the man in whom these ministers and their flocks put their faith.

Evidently, the Christian religious institutions of this Nation have made little progress since the days of witch burnings, race-based lynching and segregation.  Worse, they’ve opted to embrace hatred in lieu of Christian teachings and biblical history.  When hatred is promulgated from the pulpit, we’ve seen in past times citizens react violently, foolishly and criminally.  This should never happen in a modern, civilized society.

Religious leaders should not be crafting or influencing legislation any more than legislators should be enacting religious practice. Is it constitutionally equitable for religious institutions to enjoy rights and privileges under law while they seek to deny the constitutional rights of equal protection from American citizens of one class or another?  Are these arguments not the exact same ones made in the 17th through 19th centuries to enslave one group to serve another?

The American public isn’t quite as stupid as many of the religious right believe. Through all the debate and rhetoric, polls show increasing, not diminishing, support for the laws to be changed enabling same-sex marriage around the Nation and recognition of gay marriages across state lines.  Though some states like North Carolina have allowed themselves to be influenced by the religious arguments in this case, others may not be so easily convinced.

Iowa, for example, has had gay marriage now for several years and hasn’t reported any reported cases of heterosexual divorces as a result of gay marriages.  In other words, if there’s a gay married couple down the street, it isn’t causing anyone’s hetero marriage to break up or be adversely affected.

The evolving nature of the living Constitution has shown that a right denied to any citizen is most assuredly one that will change in the fullness of time. That time has come for this issue.

President Obama did not rise to seek national legislation enabling same-sex marriage and prefaced his decision by clearly stating this should be a decision of the various states.  Nonetheless, he did set the benchmark and opened the discussion.  The resulting hatred from a small group of religious leaders may have been astounding to some, but the outcome – support from millions of moderate voters is even more so, showing clearly the population is in favor of it.

Religious institutions will not suffer as a result of this change, and the sanctity of religious rites of marriage will not be altered.  The question will simply boil down to whether any state may deny the equal rights of any group of citizens afforded to the masses in a civil process and a contractual bond under law.  Whether this comes up before the US Supreme Court or not, the evidence is mounting that the Constitution, not the Bible, shall be the deciding document.

From an economic perspective, the LGBT community has been traditionally one of the wealthiest and most financially influential.  They have literally changed for the better, the economic outlook of entire communities around the United States and are singularly responsible for positive gentrification of many poor neighborhoods, lifting the economic condition of millions of poor Americans by remodeling run-down homes, opening shops and restaurants and providing services to the communities in which they reside.

Billions of dollars would be spent by this community on weddings; home values would increase as they purchase property to settle down in; tens of thousands of construction jobs would be created; entire industries uplifted, such as travel, tourism, restaurants, furniture, etc.  This begs a big question ignored by Americans who object on religious grounds – will voting to deny these rights to gays and lesbians be economically helpful or harmful?  Time will tell.

After months of wrangling with hardline Tea Party members of the House and Senate, Congress finally in the 11th hour, sent a bill to President Obama raising the debt ceiling with a plan to cut expenditures by over 2 Trillion dollars. Just days after, in a week of extreme volatility in the public markets around the world, Standard & Poor downgraded the nation’s credit rating from its historic AAA rating.

This will mean that every credit card holder, student, homeowner or business borrower will be immediately affected by increased costs of borrowing. Credit markets, already tight, will become even tighter, making it more and more difficult for new enterprises to start and existing ones to expand. That translates into reduced job opportunities and potentially, more corporate belt tightening and consequential job losses.

In a period when it is critical to increase employment and build the national economy, this will come as a major blow to the future and its impact will be felt for at least a generation, maybe two. It will be felt in every corner of the nation; in big cities and small villages; and by every socio-economic group. The ramifications of this crisis of national creditworthiness will grind government projects into the ground, causing appropriations for the most routine, even essential functions to be reduced or eliminated.

The Tea Party seems to have won their goal to reduce the size of government, but they did so at the price of destroying the economy in the process.  We are likely to slip into a second Great Recession and likely, a full economic depression purely for the sake of their political commitment to a non-governmental organization not to pay taxes.  They took a political pledge and allowed it to supersede their primary obligation – their oath of office – to uphold and defend the Constitution of The United States.

While our corporate institutions are generally in good shape economically and able to withstand many of the pressures this crisis will create, in order for them to do so, they will be compelled to downsize even more.  We are likely to see more and more companies transferring their corporate operations off-shore, to places like China, India and other growing industrialized nations.

The debate over raising the debt ceiling deeply wounded John Boehner’s speakership, making it difficult for him to successfully hold his party’s votes together.  Eric Cantor (R-VA) is likely to continue siding with the Tea Party faction, effectively stabbing Boehner in the back by breaking the long-held tradition of unified Republican voting.   This could make Congress ineffective in resolving the complexities involved in restoring the Nation’s credit rating.  At minimum, we may be forced to wait until 2013 to see the effect of political change.  Either voters will add to the Tea Party’s ranks or they’ll replace them with representatives with stronger, more stable economic knowledge and practical solutions.

The longer this goes without resolution and restoration of the triple-A rating, the harder it will be to fix the condition. We fully expect and anticipate that with the present Congress, it will be nearly impossible to pass any legislation that will be productive. As a result, we believe the Nation, and indeed the world will be headed into a global depression.

When the last Great Depression hit in 1930, the only means of resolving it was massive stimulus spending, inspirational national projects and ultimately, war.  Why war as a tool of economic restoration? For two reasons. it reduces populations allowing for the redistribution of wealth to a smaller, but wider group; and it creates massive government spending.

Depression will lead to the rise of fanaticism, racism, social bias and prejudice, hatred and eventually to military confrontation. Fear and economic panic will eventually radicalize any population. As a result, irrational behavior will become commonplace and we’ll see stable, civilized nations greatly affected, perhaps facing revolutions.  With the use of technology, we’ve already seen Egypt and other nations subjected to revolutions.

The public will likely blame the Republican Party for this crisis, though it is not the moderate Republicans who caused this. It is however, squarely the responsibility of ill-informed Tea Party members who base doctrine and dogma on incorrect analysis of data and fear-mongering. Oddly, the same thing that led to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany in 1932 and Iraq’s Bath Party in the 1960′s and while we are not comparing any politician or political group to the Nazi’s, we are suggesting that the circumstances and history are similar.

The public’s fear of economic loss and deprivation of an expected lifestyle will cause many to shift political opinion, just as the middle-class and lower classes did in the Russia of 1917.  War will ensure that Americans radicalize.  The political future will be volatile, dangerous, unstable and fearful.

Democrats will not come out of this crisis unscathed either. Failure of strong leadership by President Obama and the lack of strength of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi to lead a compromise will cause many to blame Democrats. While perfectly true, it remains however, a crisis caused solely by the bullying tactics and ill-informed economic theories of the Tea Party.

For Speaker Boehner, the problem will not be whether he can get his Tea Party members to vote with him, it’s going to be what they’ll actually vote on.  Before a bill is introduced, it is usually negotiated and rather than doing most of his negotiating with Democrats, he’ll be compelled to do so within his own caucus.  The result, most likely, will be watered down legislation that is ineffective and potentially hazardous.

The S & P downgrade was the result of watered down legislation that could have easily prevented this entire fiasco.  The original compromise legislation that Boehner and Obama had reached would have successfully prevented this crisis by ensuring that there were added revenues in addition to spending cuts to ensure deficit reduction.  Now, Congress has no option other than to approve immediate repeal of the Bush-era tax cuts and to allocate 100% of that revenue to deficit reduction.

The American public, meanwhile, will be the worse for the wear, suffering considerably as this unfolds before them.  Disgusted, and already radicalized, they won’t know whom to believe.  Faith will not resolve this, not even faith in their leaders.  Rather, they must elect moderates who’s goal is to fix the economy,  not to reduce taxes, strip spending or downsize government.  Dogma and ideology have no place in resolving broken economies.

View the full FDX chart at Wikinvest

The technological revolution is like every other revolution. There will be victims and heroes.  The Post Office has slowly become a victim, while companies like Google and Microsoft have been the heroes, making communication between people faster, easier and more effective.

Still, even in this revolution, the Post Office endures and indeed it must continue to operate as an obligation and duty of government, even though for a very long time it has been only quasi-governmental.  There are ways to save it from potential bankruptcy, despite its multi-billion dollar annual losses.

One would be to scale back the number of post offices, consolidating many located in close proximity, and re-zoning zipcodes.  For example, when the US Census is taken and Congress redistricted based on population shifts, so too should be zipcodes to ensure that the zipcode reflects a number of occupied deliverable addresses.  Less zipcodes means less post offices. Staggering delivery days could help too, with some sections of a postal zone receiving delivery on Saturday and skipping Wednesdays, and others only receiving delivery Monday through Friday.

Congress could legislate that the USPS have jurisdiction over e-mail, and impose a fee, like a stamp, on all commercial  e-mails that are unsolicited by their recipients.  This proposal, long outstanding, would reduce the volume of spam, help to enforce the Cann-Spam Act and generate a few billion annually for the USPS.

Critics will say this would create a government policing of our e-mail communications and invasion of our privacy.  Potentially, that may have merit, but if private direct communication between two individuals, even business people, is left untaxed and unmonitored, there should be no harm.  Only commercial e-mailers would be taxed, even if they operate outside the United States.  Failure to pay would result in denial of access to US networks.  Those same critics would also complain that freedom of communication would result.  Actually, only the freedom to spam, and send out unsolicited commercial communications.

Prior to e-mail, many companies did direct mail using the USPS and this proposal is merely an electronic extension of that concept, where direct mailers had to obtain bulk mailing permits and mail on a fee basis.  Is it unreasonable that commercial bulk e-mailers should pay the same type of fees to the USPS?

Another consideration would be to have the USPS provide more electronic services, complementing and coordinating under law, with all electronic communications.  For example, expanding on the sale of stamps, one could buy a stamp for a penny and ensure delivery of your email with confirmation via the USPS mail servers.  Or, all private mailservers could route through USPS for a nominal fee, allowing USPS to filter out all unpaid emails, reducing junk mail to zero.

The USPS could offer coupons, delivered by mail to everyone, offering small discounts to use its services.  It could also send out mailings to every business customer offering special discounted programs to compete even more with its commercial rivals.

Congress could approve USPS becoming the central broadband carrier, enabling it to earn revenues electronically, with minimal labor.

USPS could do a marketing campaign to remind Americans of its loyalty to them for over 200 years and calling upon them to return the loyalty and mail a letter, send a card or a package.

It could provide postal discount loyalty programs through greeting card companies.  For every 50 cards you send, you get 5 stamps free, or something like that.

USPS could rebrand, and become more competitive in the marketplace.  Private companies do this, but they don’t use government based contracting to achieve positive results.  They also test branding.  The last time USPS rebranded, it did a low-bid contract that resulted in typically government-styled logo and designs.

Reorganize, including major shifts in personnel costs and management.  They should consider bringing in some management consultants, M&A specialists and organizational experts who are not government employees.  Take a private sector approach to rebuilding the organization from a purely competitive perspective.

Consider increasing the scheduled pick up and delivery. Without adding new labor costs, it is possible to pick up mail more often and deliver it more frequently.  The technology exists to facilitate this.  Capital investment by Congress could ensure profit versus a $7 Billion loss.

It is time USPS and more important, Congress, become more aware of their need to compete in an open marketplace. The alternative would be a return to the monopoly, with the nationalization of FedEx, UPS an all other delivery services.

New York will presently be the largest and most populous state to allow gay marriage, California’s law still remains in the courts, but is expected to reach the US Supreme Court at some point, The passage of the New York legislation will certainly send a loud signal to justices that gay marriage is the will of the people.

The passage of the same-sex marriage law approved same-sex marriage, hands American gay rights advocates a major victory in their quest for equality.

After extensive debate, the New York State Senate approved the legislation Friday night, as two previously undecided Republican lawmakers cast the deciding votes in favor of it.

Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, said the law would have “a ripple effect across the nation”.

“It’s truly a historic night for love, our families, and democracy won,” he added.

New York could become a magnet for such marriages because the state has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, All the other states with legalized same-sex marriage have some residency requirement.

Activists consider New York’s approval particularly significant since it is the third largest U.S, state and because of New York City’s international stature, The city also is considered to be the birthplace of the gay rights movement, with the Stonewall riots in the city’s Greenwich Village community in 1969. There was a huge street party at the Stonewall Inn overnight.

Revelers posted photos of the celebrations on Twitter, which included waving rainbow flags and dancing. The vote is likely to be celebrated at annual gay pride events this weekend, culminating with parades in New York City, San Francisco and other cities on Sunday.

Pressure to back the legislation came from celebrities, athletes and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has long used his own fortune to help bankroll Republican campaigns and personally lobbied some undecided representatives.

The state Senate debate over the last several days centered on providing legal protections for religious groups opposed to same-sex marriages that feared they would be sued for discrimination if they refused to allow their facilities to be used for gay weddings, The lawmakers agreed on language allowing religious organizations to refuse to perform such marriages or provide space for them.

One of the pivotal Republicans, State Senator Stephen Saland, had voted against a similar bill two years ago, but on Friday pledged the deciding vote in favor the law, He called his change of heart “a vote of conscience” and said he was “doing the right thing.”

Gay couples in the legislative gallery wept as they listened to his speech,

In approving the law, the state joins Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa and Washington, D.C, in allowing gay couples to marry.

The legislative debate coincided with President Barack Obama’s speech Thursday before a group of gay rights supporters at a campaign fundraising event in New York City.

Obama told the crowd that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as any other couple in this country, but he did not fully endorse same-sex marriage, The president has upset gay rights activists for his support of civil unions over marriage, but recently said his views on the matter are “evolving.”

The passage of this law in New York, particularly with the Republicans supporting it may give Obama the political support to endorse the initiative, and to seek repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act that has plagued same-sex couples since the Bush administration, That law allows states to disregard the laws passed in other states, While a same-sex couple may be married legally in New York, states like Colorado or Utah do not have any legal obligation to respect that marriage, as they would the marriage of an opposite-sex couple.

Obama defended his administration’s record on gay rights, including repealing the ban on homosexuals serving in the military, and ordering the Justice Department to stop defending a law that narrowly defines marriage as that between a man and a woman.

Some analysts expect other states which have previously passed same-sex civil unions to amend their laws to allow actual marriages modeled on the New York law, Others anticipate that the same type of law, with provisions to allow religious bodies to discriminate against gay marriages on their properties will follow suit and pass such laws, though it is expected to take a long time.

Gay community activists however, believe this win to be a major victory in a long battle for equality and civil rights.

Economists on our staff believe New York will see a major surge in consumer spending and a dramatic increase in population over the next two years as same-sex couples spend on weddings, and others from states without such laws move to New York, The gay community has one of the highest economic profiles according to analysis performed by Harvard School of Economics in the 1980s.

Anthony Weiner, former Representative of NY’s 9th District.

The reason for his popularity is that he produces results and he speaks to their desires and wishes.  To blazes, they feel, with what the Congressman did privately.  While they feel his pain, they also feel the horrible fear that whoever steps into his office will have no clue how to do what he did so well.   Those are well founded fears.

The 9^th district is one that has always considered itself left out of New York City’s political benefits and many parts have felt they’ve suffered enough.  Keeping in mind that Congressman Weiner represented the part of the Rockaways that suffered the greatest losses of life in the 9/11 tragedy, only to have a jet crash upon less than 2 months later.  His district covers areas of wealth and poverty and every ethnic and religious group possible.  He represented them equitably, explaining his continued popularity.

Every single charity, social organization and civic group has benefited one way or another by his excellent leadership and representation.  Now that he’s gone, they all know that they and the communities they serve will suffer greatly.  It is that, not his personal mistakes that have made so many community leaders in the district angry and upset.

Andrew Breitbart, self-proclaimed journalist

The actions of Andrew Breitbart in this whole affair raise a plethora of questions about his motives, his behavior and his professionalism as an alleged journalist.  We say “alleged” because his behavior in this has been far less than that of a journalist, and more of a rumor-monger and political antagonist.

After invading and literally taking the podium at the press event Weiner called without Weiner’s consent and disclosing that he had more photos but promising not to show them, Breitbart indeed showed those images to Opie and Anthony, hosts of a New York radio talk show, allowing them to take a photo of that image and did not protest their publication at all.  Effectively, he permitted and enabled them to violate the privacy of the Congressman with the direct intent to destroy his reputation and his personal life, not to mention, with the clear intent to bring harm to his district.  This isn’t strange, it’s incredibly bizarre and smacks of some underlying motivation not yet revealed.

Who appointed Andrew Breitbart to be the moral police of this nation’s leaders?  Who gave him the right to violate any individual’s privacy?  Even an elected official is a citizen and has rights to freedom, privacy and security. How did Breitbard acquire the sanctimonious authority to investigate the private conversations of anyone, let alone a Member of Congress?  This sort of “journalism” is not only dangerous, it is precedent-setting.  It should make all citizens, irrespective of their political affiliations, faith or gender absolutely fearful, for this is the modern-day equivalent of a lynching and anyone with any level of authority is subject  to this “yellow journalism”.

Where does this end?   We see a very bleak future ahead when any political leader, may be investigated privately, even when no laws have been broken.  No politician, in the performance of his or her duties will be able to make a call, send an email or post any information for the fear that someone will misinterpret it, or that it will spur a private citizen investigation that will cause him or her to lose the seat they hold.

This does not have limitations to Congress.  Literally, any CEO or even a low level supervisor may be blasted in the media today for some supposed moral violation, even if not a violation of law or ethics codes.  There is no limit, up or down the chain.  Mr. Breitbart, by his alleged and self-professed Americanism, has without fail, turned this nation into Soviet Russia, when anyone with a moral complaint about a fellow Russian could file a story with the party and within hours that person was gone.  Yes, Mr. Breitbart is sponsoring a communist, socialist state.

The people of New York’s 9^th, particularly those organizations that have need for and have benefited from Congressman Weiner’s aid and representation, should collectively sue Mr. Breitbart for damages they suffer as a result, because the Congressman was forced to resign, leaving them for over a month without representation – a violation of their civil rights.

Mr. Breitbart should also be held by professional editors and journalists to the same high, altruistic standard of journalism that major newspapers and media outlets have been held to for generations.  He has given them a bad name and a black eye.

If the House Ethics Committee did consider this matter, they would have been forced to investigate Mr. Breitbart’s actions and his purpose, and he would have been held accountable for those actions, legally and morally. Weiner’s resignation has saved Breitbart from government scrutiny, but not civil. The disruption this whole affair has caused is not the result of anything the Congressman did, but of the politically motivated release of information obtained perhaps illegally, by Mr. Breitbart.  If he gets away with this, it will be open season on any politician, in any office whatsoever.

We, as a nation, do not need a moral police squad operated by Breitbart or anyone else.  If a Member of Congress has violated the law, the Congress has a process for dealing with that and Breitbart should have followed that rather than rushing to publish photos that were outside the scope of professional journalism.  Scandal mongering does not deserve a place in a free society.

For the record, we do not know former Congressman Weiner, nor his wife.  We do not operate in his district, but our Chief Economist and Director grew up and lived there for most of his youth, his family living there since the 1880’s.  He served on a community organization that is in the Congressman’s district long before Weiner ran for office the first time as a NYC Councilman.  This scandal is causing a community of hard working people great harm – which will not be cured by Weiner’s resignation, but exacerbated by that.

Richard, accompanied by his wife Hiroko, were in Japan for business and a family event. Anyone with information on their whereabouts should please contact us immediately.

Mr. Bloch is an associate of Epicurus Consulting, having worked with us on numerous projects over more than a decade.

Richard Bloch

A winner of the James Beard Award for, “Unique Dining Experience,” Richard Bloch, RA, AIA, NCARB, has established himself as a well-known restaurant architect and interior designer in a career spanning more than three decades.

In addition, he has a diverse background in areas such as town planning, contract interiors, cultural centers and residential work in the United States and internationally.

Richard was a Fulbright Scholar in Turkey, a city planner in Iran, and a design consultant for U.S. Government cultural centers in Japan, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Belgium and Mexico. After receiving an architecture degree from Pratt Institute in New York, Bloch served as a Peace Corp volunteer working as a city planner in a number of small towns near Tehran.

While spending time in Japan, Bloch designed six cultural centers, during which time he invented a structural knuckle, a geometry system, earning him a 10-year, “Original Invention” patent in Japan.

Following Japan, he opened his first office in Washington, DC, in 1972 doing work for USIS/USIA and the Voice of America. He spent time in Japan, Europe and the Middle East again before permanently moving back to New York where he joined the firm Harper and George, later known as the George Studio.

Since establishing RBA in 1986, the firm has completed hundreds of commissions and his work has been featured in numerous newspapers and magazines from around the world.

Hiroko Bloch

Hiroko spent five years at USIS /USIA as secretary to the Director of the Tokyo American Cultural Center and another year at the Japanese Embassy in Washington DC. Followed by 15 years as the first secretary to the president of the then newly formed US-Japan Foundation. Since joining RBA 8 years ago she has managed and administered the office. Hiroko’s Japanese/English translations of documents, technical queries and business communications have been vital to the work in Japan.

Hiroko is the office manager for husband Richard Bloch’s New York based architectural firm. They live nearby in the SoHo district of Manhattan.

Both are very much beloved by everyone here at The Epicurus Group. Our thoughts and prayers for their safety and safe return are with them.