Exposing A Fallacy

You don't have to be a rocket scientist or even a logical thinker to understand a terrible fallacy. Almost everything Americans buy, such as autos; electronics, clothing and many other items are manufactured in foreign lands. Even American cars are partially manufactured in Mexico. Americans are so involved in consuming, that the United States has been over-buying from the world since before the 1970s. The U.S. passed from positive to negative in exchange to the world in 1977, which placed the U.S. on the short side. The annual loss has been over $600 billion and gets larger almost every year. This loss represents a big difference between what Americans buy as against what we sell to the world.

Here is the fallacy. If Americans are buying more than selling, how can the country as a whole enjoy a large growth rate in the economy, which was recently stated at 3.5 % per year? To enjoy any kind of growth must come from those who sell foreign products. They are enjoying increases in the numbers of items sold, $600+ billion with profits increasing. Technically, that is growth in the nation's economy. On the distaff side, the United States can't be increasing its manufacturing to achieve such a large growth, for the numbers show that the U.S. manufacturing is too small a part of the whole economy and it is shrinking yearly.

Realizing this, the fallacy expands; although the economy is increasing, the United States is not adding to its capital base. In other words, we are not manufacturing items, building factories nor doing anything to create jobs for our children or our grandchildren. Yes, our progeny can become sales or service people, but they will sell to whom? The other question is, where are those people doing all the buying today getting their money? It must be from sales and services!

What everyone agrees to is that Americans are leaving their grandchildren with an ever-growing national debt, which has an ever-growing interest obligation.

What a national failure!

Then there is Orwell's other statement, "Freedom is Slavery." Big Brother goes around telling all of us what a free country we live in, and emphasizing our presumed desires to bring freedom to the rest of the world. Free by getting the Congress to enact the most repressive laws under the umbrella of increased security. Free to have had the Attorney General enforce laws that didn't exist, or stop plea bargaining. Yes, Americans are even free to support and rebuild Iraq, while we have nothing to show for it ourselves - not even additional jobs. Little known, again our ignorance, we are spending money buying mercenaries from small countries as additional soldiers to just stand around in Iraq. Look at the freedom we brought to peaceful Afghanistan and now to "peaceful" Iraq. And we, the peace-loving people brought such happiness to Somalia, Panama, Serbia and Kosovo. (Those are only the big military operations in recent years.) We are such peace loving people that if we had been warlike, what would the world be today? How do or will most other counties refrain from finding excuses to attack other countries with all of our supposedly justifiable excuses for starting wars?

Let us all hope that there is some higher force to protect Americans, our progeny and the rest of the world, not as much from Big Brother, but from our ignorance.

Corporations And Citizen's Interests

CORPORATIONS

The U.S. Congress ratifies many bills that don't represent citizens' interests. A few important legislation's that were recently passed included: the Medicare bill, the monumental energy bill and environmental legislation.

The U.S. drug companies put into the Medicare bill a small provision that Americans can't go to other countries to buy prescription drugs. The idiotic rational for this legislation is that the drugs might be unsafe in other countries. In effect, that is saying that Canadians are risking their lives with the same or similar medications. Are the U.S. drug companies sending inferior products to Canada? How offensive to the Canadians!

The U.S. auto companies kept any oil conservation measures out of the energy bill. Do the board members of American oil and auto companies approve of the U.S sending dollars for oil to Muslim countries? That cash has the potential of reaching the terrorists hands. American auto companies are losing market share to foreign auto makers by not producing energy efficient cars. Most car owners don't enjoy spending large amounts per gallon for excess gasoline consumption.

Do the board members of the electric companies which currently use coal have children and breathe the air surrounding them? It is likely that they along with their wives and children don't live in the United States. If they live outside the U.S., they don't feel compelled to upgrade the U.S. plants. They just let the stockholders and most Americans breathe the dirty air. The board members other ploy is to buy credits from clean plants. That creates favored living areas. But what about those areas near the dirty plants? Who cares? It is definitely not a concern if those in charge live outside the U.S.

The directors and officers of companies do not necessarily speak for the stockholders or employees. The money they use to influence Congress is corporate money not their money. Money that is not used for the corporation must be given to the owners of the company. This logic must apply to any and all non-business expenses or gifts. Examine what major companies have donated for - special religious or educational causes. Many of these causes, like creationism, can be controversial, depending upon the viewpoint endowed. If stockholders received larger dividends, they could choose to make individual donations.

Our founding fathers provided for this situation of influencing the government toward their causes. The First Amendment states "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," not to buy the government. If corporation directors think something is wrong, let them use corporate money to get stockholders to petition Congress.

Corporations are artificial creations of a government. It is the responsibility of the governments (the states) to restrict these expenses. In one way or another, the legislators' ox can or will be gored. If not today, then tomorrow!

Socialist Elites and Obama Political Operatives Insist Small Businesses Don't Get Economics

The other day someone told me that it was great that I ran a small business, but then I found it was a back-handed compliment as he told me I didn't understand the role of government - to that I say BS. I run a think tank, and my small business turned into a franchise operation in 23-states, 450 cities, and 4-countries. And I understand government better than most, and better than most at the annual Davos Convention where world leaders embarrass themselves with their socialist theory and ignorance as to what government is about.

You see, I see governments purpose similar to Ludwig van Misses "Bureaucracy" so go pick up a copy of it and then tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Now then, let me tone it down a little bit and explain it to you in simpler terms, without my sharp tongue or attitude. Let me just give it to you straight.

When this administration tells the small business people of the world which employee two-thirds of our population that they don't know what they're talking about, and that President Obama and his team can run a better economy than all the small businesses going about their business and making exchanges in the free marketplace of their own accord and for the consumers, clients, and customers who vote with their dollar by choice - well that is just ridiculous.

Small business people understand economics, they understand how to balance a checkbook, keep inventory, save for a rainy day, and they know a hell of a lot more about providing jobs than this administration. This administration has spent $5 trillion, plundered our nation's treasury, and we don't have any more jobs to show for it over a four year period, and yet this administration has the audacity to ask the American voters and the American people for four more years. No way.

One thing that people don't understand is that 10% of our population is self-employed, and that 10% hires two-thirds of the rest of our population. In other words 66% of our population is employed by small business, and 10% are the owners of those businesses, and that equals 76%. The corporations and the government combined employ the remaining 24%. President Romney, hopefully the future president, understands this, and he was right when he stated that our small businesses are the job growth engine for our nation. Now then, with regards to the Obama Administration; how dare anyone who was never run a small business in their life tell us otherwise! Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

The Reality Of Taxes

In the United States there are people who feel that paying taxes is un-American. They would rather see a vast curtailment of civic programs. Their overriding desire is to reduce their own personal tax burden. Fortunately, most Congress members need to get reelected, so social programs are reduced but not cut. Either way, the necessity of paying for our current needs is passed on to our progeny. It is already necessary for the government to sell bonds for almost everything it does. That includes any funding for the reduced social programs. When the U.S. had a positive balance in the national government's finances, our current president made an unsound premise that the positive balances were the "peoples' money." He forced through Congress new tax reductions. That positive balance was actually our grandchildren's money, not ours. The money collected from taxes would have reduced the national debt. Now our grandchildren will live with an ever increasing debt from all our current excesses.

The wealthy have turned their backs on the poor, to avoid writing tax checks to the city, state and national governments. The upper class does not realize that if the middle class and the poor get any money, they spend it. This increases most businesses' bottom lines. That gives the wealthy, which own the businesses, more money than any tax reductions might provide. Generally the wealthy don't do additional spending from tax reductions. The wealthy already have everything they desire. The tax reductions for the rich don't really help business. That extra money might go into stocks of foreign travel. Higher sock prices don't directly help businesses. The increased stock prices help speculators who buy and sell the stocks. In fact, few of the daily stock trades are in listed stocks. The stocks traded daily far exceed the number of shares listed in any market. That is especially evident after eliminating the stocks that are seldom traded by trusts, pension funds and little old ladies. As to foreign travel, that obviously doesn't help business here in the U.S.

Many corporate executives move their companies out of the U.S. to find cheaper labor. Some corporations move their offices to off shore locations just so to save on taxes. The middle class and the poor are then left without work. Many people take meaningless jobs to get any income. The wealthy demanded lower taxes and got tax reductions for themselves. They expect the Federal government to protect their foreign investments, if those investments get threatened. That seems unjust and incomprehensible. Shouldn't those executives and companies be paying higher taxes or even a penalty tax? They started in the U.S., so they should in effect pay for the learning and development experience that triggered their success.

What is even more incomprehensible, most international U.S. corporations have refused to repatriate profits earned abroad, leaving that money outside the country just to save on U.S. taxes. Talk about patriotism!

The U.S. citizens and Congress must focus upon the real problems, not the immediate benefits, if the United States hopes to continue to prosper. Every American, even top corporate executives, must realize that the American government needs tax money in order to operate. It is easy to pass our responsibilities on to future generations. But when that becomes personal, like our own children or grandchildren, we think differently. Taxes are as much a necessity as our next meal. We can't skip it. We can't imagine our grandchildren living under the burden of interest on a huge unmanageable national debt. We must face that time for it is fast approaching.

Media Bias: Was History Channel's Postponement of Series Finale Politically Motivated?

The History Channel just completed an eight hour series, The Men Who Built America, about five influential capitalists that almost single-handedly transformed a broken, tired post-Civil War America into a global super power: Vanderbilt (Shipping/Railroads), Rockefeller (Oil), Carnegie (Steel), JP Morgan (Finance), and Ford (Autos). Capitalists will cheer and communists will jeer these men but all will enjoy this extraordinarily interesting story of their lives, their deals and their interactions with each other as they propelled America into the world's top economy and amassed unsurpassed personal fortunes. During the height of their careers Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan were collectively worth in today's currency some $1 Trillion.

This is an excellent series that everyone should see. However, it is particularly curious that its finale was scheduled to air two days before Election Day but was postponed at the last minute until November 11th because of "unforeseen circumstances." After viewing the finale, one must wonder if those "unforeseen circumstances" included the potential for that episode to inadvertently help republicans during the elections two days later. The 50-year period depicted in the series touches upon many themes relevant to the election narrative this year, including the role of capitalism, class struggle (99% vs. 1%), labor unions, the role of government regulation, to name a few.

The first six hours of the series, which aired repeatedly during October, clearly made the case for the incumbent president and democrats. Those "robber barons" were depicted as greedy and ruthless and were reviled by nearly everyone in their time; they screwed their customers, their workers, their partners and each other, a pattern that supports the democrat agenda to expand the role of government to reign in and regulate the wealth and influence of the rich and powerful. Given the relentless and slanderous attacks against Bain Capital, Mitt Romney and republicans generally as self serving, greedy capitalists, viewers are likely to draw comparisons between those men and today's republicans.

However, by delaying the finale, viewers must wait until after the election to find out that those titan figures set up foundations to distribute much of that wealth for the benefit of mankind, through charitable organizations that survive to this day. Additionally, despite all the brutality and hardship inflicted by those men, those men made America the unrivaled economic and military superpower of the 20th century; a nation positioned and destined to defend the free world against tyranny during two world wars.

Our entire way of life today began with the achievements of those men; railroads unified the nation and along with steel made our dense cities possible. Oil and autos made subsequent suburbanization inevitable. Those men also gave us companies that today are known as General Electric, Exxon, Chevron, U.S. Steel, Ford and scores more. The series also makes the point that brutality and ruthlessness was the by-product of the speed with which those industries were expanded and consolidated. We can never know whether a slower, more genteel, less disruptive evolution would have ultimately yielded similar prosperity. Series closing commentary underscores the point that those men and their entrepreneurial spirit "built" modern America, despite our president's claim about today's entrepreneurs to the contrary. All of those mitigating factors must weigh into the evaluation of the critics of capitalism.

Was the finale's postponement an unfortunate coincidence or a deliberate attempt to influence the election? We may never know. If finding politics in a seemingly innocuous postponement of a TV series sounds far-fetched, it is at least consistent with other seemingly innocuous delays by this administration, including and most recently the stonewalled investigation into the Libya attack (Sept 11), the attempted Iranian attack on our drone (Nov 1), and most recently the resignation of CIA Director (Nov 9) for transgressions obviously known well before the election. The American people still wait for adequate answers by this administration. In that light, questioning the motivation for postponing the finale of this politically relevant series is probably not as far-fetched as it might initially seem.

Now Americans Get to Learn What Obama's Tax Reform Means - Huge Tax Increases

During the run-up to the 2012 elections, I can remember that President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney had a final debate in Florida, Governor Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, challenging the incumbent Democrat Barack Obama was explaining his economic plans and his thoughts on taxation, loopholes, and various deductions which might be cut to help improve government revenue. President Barack Obama insisted that he didn't want tax cuts, but he had a tax reform plan of his own.

This was news to me because he already had four years to implement any new tax reform strategies, but hadn't until now even mentioned it, except for this "class warfare" of taxing the rich billionaire boys club. Perhaps he was going to wait until after the election like so many other things that he plans on doing, but he did wanted to disrupt his campaign, or cause himself to lose votes. He would be afraid of losing the confidence of the American voter by reneging on his words, or promises during the previous 2008 election, not that he had fulfilled very many of them anyway in the four years after that.

Well, on this note I would like to explain to you what Obama's tax reform strategy really means. He told us that he would raise the tax on millionaires and billionaires. Still, if we took all the money from all the billionaires in the United States, he couldn't even run the United States federal government for more than 90 days, and it would hardly make a dent in the federal debt, or the additional trillion dollars that he is spending up and beyond the amount of money that comes in in tax revenue to the federal government.

Okay so, what does this mean? It means that not only people that make more than $250,000 per year will have an increased tax bill; it means that every American in the middle class will get squeezed even more. In fact, we are destroying our middle-class now, we are taking them down. Many believe that socialism balances the playing field, and helps with financially quality. In some regards that's true, because when socialism finally hits, everyone in the entire country is equally poor, except a very few individuals who are in cahoots with the leadership, and able to make crony capitalist deals and stay in the flow of money.

Interestingly enough, those folks rarely pay taxes, and it hardly matters which country they are in, because if it is run by socialists, it's always the same. If you doubt what I'm saying just take a look at Greece, Italy, Spain, or Portugal right now. That's where they are all at, and that's where we're going because the American voters never bothered to ask what President Obama's tax reform meant, they never looked at the plan, because it was never shown. It was another one of those Nancy Pelosi moments; "you are just going to have to vote for it (him) to see what's in it (the tax reform plan)."

Nevertheless, the American People voted for the brilliant orator and Teleprompter in Chief one last time as he made those great speeches. The rest is history, and folks it is a; repeat. Socialism is not progressive, it's regressive, it's never worked in human history.

Big Government To The Rescue, But Why Are We Drowning in Debt?

The Democrats, Left-Leaning Powers that be, and their socialist contingency seem to believe that the way out of debt is to spend more. Well, I think we all inherently know that isn't going to work, and yet, they keep preaching to their choir convincing them otherwise, promising of a utopian future, as the walls around the castle decay and come cascading down.

Do we really need big government? Some think so, in fact after Hurricane Super Storm Sandy most left-leaning individuals cried in unison; "this is why we need big government - to help in emergencies, because some things business can't do - like FEMA," they retorted. Really, are you sure about that, let's talk shall we?

There were three recent articles I think you ought to read, all of which appeared in the Wall Street Journal between November 2 -3.

1.) "In Disaster Relief, Big Government Isn't Always Better," by Cato Institute's Michael Tanner 2.) "Millions Stuck in Dark, Cold - With Temperatures Falling, Crews Scramble to Restore Power in Storm's Wake," by Rebecca Smith and Dionne Searcey. 3.) "Few Big FEMA Generators Humming - Federal Officials' Tally of Emergency Power Supplies Shifts; Stricken States Tap Fraction of Equipment," by Devlin Barrett

The first article reminds us of those FEMA Trailers, some $878 million worth, most never used, sold at auction or destroyed as they had formaldehyde in them - oh how soon we forget indeed. Further, we still have the Democrats complaining about Hurricane Katrina, wasn't that their big government at work? The second article showed a map of the millions still without power several days after the storm, and noted another big cold-snap (snow, ice, wicked winds) is on its way, and if the power is not on by then, everyone there will be SOL.

The third article, notes that FEMA has 400 giant generators stationed throughout the East Coast, but they just don't have the fuel to run them, so, they aren't doing much good. Interestingly enough, there was an article in the New York Times which indicated two large generators in Central Park were running non-stop in the make shift command center for the relief efforts, along with get this; catered food for the relief teams. I guess the big government sure knows how to take care of; itself.

Okay so, what's my point? Well, let me tell you a story coming in from a friend in New Jersey. You see, he has back-up generators but they had run out of fuel after four days, so he sent his son to go stand in line at the gas station. Turns out FEMA diverted the fuel delivery to the gas station to their mobile command center in town so they could run their own generators, so they could supposedly get the power up and running for everyone - but they haven't still. This article is now written 1-week after Super Storm Sandy hit.

Big governments don't help the people, they help themselves. Eventually they are so big, they no longer need the people - in fact, they see the people as a nuisance. So, if you want big socialist style government, then I say to you; be careful what you wish for my friend. Please consider all this and think on it.

Obama Wants More Regulations On Wall Street - Why The Problem Was Lack of Enforcement

We had some pretty serious economic pain in 2008, but it was the culmination of so many things really. We keep listening to President Obama, and VP Joe Biden run around the country claiming that we need more regulations on Wall Street. But we had plenty of regulations prior to the crash, they just were not being enforced. Overregulation isn't the answer, and attempting to regulate morality doesn't work either. Further, I would submit to you that if we want more regulation on Wall Street, maybe we should start with more regulation against insider trading in Congress, and crony capitalism of the executive branch.

You see, it was not a lack of regulation on Wall Street which caused the banking crisis rather it was failure to enforce the rules already on the books. It was also the incestuous relationship of Washington DC with regards to Freddie and Fannie, plus the attacks on AIG and Hank Greenberg by Elliot Spitzer. Hank who built the company would never have let a small AIG office in London sell insurance policies for those mortgage bundles of credit default swaps at that level of risk, that's just too much exposure.

Further, Treasury Secretary Snow and President Bush told Congress that the Freddie and Fannie thing was out of control, but it seems everyone wanted an "ownership society" and we made rules for credit lending to ensure "equality" - oh so, there we go again, that socialist motif of; Equality and Sustainability.

Next for those who say that we need Obama in office to keep an eye on Wall Street - well that's just ridiculous because it was the banks and their lobbyists and lawyers who wrote the Dodd Frank Bill, which now sets big banks up for big advantages over smaller banks and community banks who are generally the ones who lend money to small businesses, and there isn't a lot of lending going on for smaller companies who provide 2/3rds of the jobs in this great nation. Look, I was a founder of a franchise company, so this point is just un-debatable, if Obama had run a business at any time in his adult life or teen years, he'd know this already.

It seems that every time we put more regulation on Wall Street, all that happens is they are engaged in the lawmaking, and those laws turn out to put barriers to entry for any smaller companies which wish to compete with them. Meanwhile, under the backdrop of anger from the population, Congress is able to pass these bills on the fast track to getting signed into law, and all the congressmen are able to get tons of campaign contributions to stave off their political competitors at home. This just means the same Congressman which are taking campaign contributions to create laws favoring the very Wall Street keep getting reelected to do even more damage later on.

If we would have been enforcing the regulations already on the books, the 2008 economic crisis wouldn't have happened. Who's to blame for this crony capitalism? Both sides of the aisle, but president Obama keeps blaming President Bush. I'd say that's rather hypocritical, and although it makes for nice debating points and political rhetoric, it simply isn't so.

Further, if President Obama and his administration were so good the economy, we'd be recovered by now, but as you've guessed; we're not. Yes, I realize that we as Americans know that all the promises that he made were false realities, it's just that I don't think we should fall for it again the second time, not after the performance we've seen. Please consider all this and think on it.

FEMA and Hurricane Sandy in 2012 - Politics During the Premath Photo-Ops

The federal government claims that FEMA, The Federal Emergency Management Agency, is ready to go to work as soon as Hurricane Sandy floods the northeastern part of the United States. They want us to know that they have everything under control, and they are capable of handling the situation. I'm not sure that all Americans are so convinced. It's a huge bureaucratic agency, and they failed the American people in the past. Okay so let's talk about this shall we?

President Obama and FEMA held a big news conference before the storm as they surveyed the situation using the NOAA artificial intelligent supercomputer algorithmic modeling. They know what is before the American people, and claim they know exactly what to do. They have their flood mapping out, and they're ready to take control. They plan on taking control of everything, and that's what concerns me the most.

There was an interesting article on Government Executive on October 29, 2012 titled; "President pledges to cut through bureaucracy in hurricane response," by Tom Shoop. Indeed, yes, I heard that comments, by President Obama during his FEMA photo-op, still, what an absurd comment and silly thing to say. You see, FEMA's own charter allows them to bypass ALL Federal Regulations and/or any State regulations for that matter as needed, that's how it's set up.

In fact, they've gone overboard before literally taking over local jurisdictions with regards to telecommunication, police, fire, even fast food restaurants to use to feed the FEMA team. They go in and get it done. This wasn't Obama's doing, it's how FEMA works. So, what I see is President Obama as already attempting to pretend he is in charge of things to show his purported leadership skills, but really, anyone in the know must be turning their heads and snickering off camera when he makes such statements to the mass media in political photo-op style.

As we've all heard the promises before from FEMA, and although they generally do their job, their performance has never been exceptional or stellar. Of course, you can't please everyone and the media is looking for controversy and chaos, and they love to put the sound and fury on the front page - usually blaming FEMA for something, which may or may not have been justified. Yes, I get that, nevertheless, I wish we had a president who would stop taking credit, or making promises, or insulting our intelligence when it comes to the ability of our federal government.

Personally, I don't find this any excuse for raising my taxes. It appears to me that we can no longer trust the government to get the job done or do with a promised to protect us. I've given up hope on that one. Further, we have a lack of leadership in the United States, and it would be comical, befitting of a late-night talk show, if it weren't so serious.

Maybe it's time for Barack Obama to show us that he can do one thing right, and perhaps he has one last chance this final week before the election. Don't tell us Mr. President, show us. Please consider all this and think on it.

Would A 2012 Romney Landslide Be Good For This Great Nation?

The other day, I was talking to someone in Starbucks who told me that he thought the polls were wrong and that Obama was going to win the November 6, 2012 election by a wide margin. I listened to his comments, predictions, and how he came about this observation of his, just one-week before the election in the middle of Hurricane Sandy's downgrade and then upgraded status to super storm. Sure enough he had some compelling evidence such as how Obama looked so compelling telling the American People that his Administration and FEMA had everything under control in the aftermath of Super Storm 2012.

Not more than three-minutes after that individual left after giving me his political speech de jour, another gentleman who had overheard all that noticed I was wearing a "declaration of Independence" shirt and figured I was a good American thus, Republican -- asked me; So, do you think there will be a Romney Landslide. I couldn't help but say that; "that would be awesome for this great nation." He smiled; because he felt the polls were close enough that it might be possible, but also admitted that this Hurricane Sandy thing might have an impact on those last minute voters, so he wasn't totally convinced that Romney would win, just that it might be close.

Let's say that Romney does win, then what happens next? Well, the DOW would soon be headed to 16,000 and small businesses would once again trust government, thus start investing, hiring, and things would begin to move back up. Next, the Romney Administration would move to reduce regulations on small business, franchises, and seek a fairer trade deal with China. The Corporate Tax Rate would come down to keep the US competitive, and we'd have an energy boom, while still investing in pure research and R&D for alternative energies, high-tech materials, biotech, military tech, and space tech.

The Romney administration would get serious about competent government and run the Federal Government the way it was designed. Our enemies abroad would see that we believe in peace, albeit through strength, and that in itself would make the world a safer place. Then comes the reduction of waste in government, the incessant duplication, and overbearing bureaucracy - Romney as the CEO of our country would seek a Six Sigma like strategy to fine-tune our government, automate where possible, and ensure that we didn't step on the toes of individual states or mandate how people should live.

We'd have a reduction in the size of our government, consolidation, and reduction in labor through attrition. We'd see more things done at the community level, not mandated by the Federal Government. Indeed, that's what I think will happen. For me that would be a giant step for mankind in the right direction. Please consider all this and think on it.

The Obama Administration Is Attempting to Malign the GOP With Alternative Energy Nonsense

Indeed, we've seen quite a bit of this "sustainability" motif when it comes to AGW Theory (yes, it's only a theory) and the alternative energy sector. The left-leaning powers that be have been trying to hijack the energy sector for quite some time, promising us a utopian clean and green future. To date the Obama Administration has spent $90 billion on alternative energy claiming it would stop pollution and create jobs, well, we have less that 3% of our total energy production in wind and solar now, so, they haven't made a dent really. That's the truth and reality.

Not long ago, an acquaintance told me that; "The GOP is complete against the change to affordable energy from sun and wind to power all the electric cars." Well, that's not exactly true, but since many have been led to believe this by false political propaganda maybe this might be a topic that I can discuss with you here today to set the record straight. So, let's talk shall we?

You see, solar and wind energy are not really affordable. Specifically wind per kilowatt hour due to the costs of installation, fact that the wind isn't always blowing, simply does not have a decent ROI. It doesn't pan out. Clean coal is nice, that might be the way to go for our future, but natural gas makes the most sense now due to cost and low emission footprint, and we have a ton of natural gas thanks to new fracking technologies.

There is a lot of power packed in fossil fuels, let's not kid ourselves, read; "Physics for Future Presidents" by Muller from Berkeley or watch Physics 10 on YouTube.

Now then, solar in the next couple of generations of technology will be ready for prime time due to increased efficiency, it's not there yet. You see, it starts out 50% inefficient to begin with; the sun doesn't shine at night.

Running all of our transportation, with electric cars is one concept, sure fine, but what about all those old batteries, are we conveniently forgetting your environment there? More battery tech is needed too; faster charging, better storage, and longer life spans. We are getting there, still needs more cooking, and electric cars are costly.

My acquaintance tells me; "You live on a different world, created by economists, that it's Cloud Cuckoo Land."

This is a common argument yes, however, please let it be known that free market capitalism will solve all the problems of mankind. But the clean energy folks are going to have to find the solution which is equivalent or better, and well, they probably will eventually, but they haven't yet, so going to economies of scale with nonsensical technology or those which cannot compete is a dead end, haven't we already seen that? Solyndra.

Lastly, I live in the real world, not some utopian dream. Look, I'll build the utopia everyone wants for a price, but I am not doing it for free, I am an entrepreneur, and no one can expect me to help if there is no payoff. So, I'd suggest to the alternative energy, AGW religion crowd, that if you are going to throw rocks at the fossil energy sector, then why not compete in the free market, if your ideas, innovations, and strategies are that superior?

Is Iran's Leadership Really Falling Apart - Who Says?

Is President Obama's strategy to use economic sanctions against Iran working? Is the new economic reality there taking its toll on the regime? Is there infighting, or even talk of another revolution attempt by a green party or their ever increasing divided electorate? Hard to say, but this is the word we are getting from the media propaganda here at home.

Why? Simple we are in the middle of the presidential 2012 elections and these issues matter, because Iran is trying to manufacture nuclear weapons, worse, they are currently sponsoring terrorist organization throughout the Middle East.

Now then, the New York Times stated on November 1, 2012 in an article titled; "Iran Supreme Leader Warns Subordinates to Stop Bickering," by Thomas Erdbink that "In his clearest warning that political infighting by his subordinates must end, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Wednesday that their public disputes would be treated as treason."

Now then, one could say that this is a sure sign that the tension in the leadership chain-of-command is under severe stress, but one could also say that it shows that the Ayatollah still has complete control and is willing to exercise it, thus, he's put all the other underlings into submission, and explained that it's his way or the highway to heaven, or hell depending on your religious affiliations?

Next, I'd like to say that jumping to conclusions so close to a presidential election is somewhat disingenuous. Further, it's so unfortunate that we just cannot count on the New York Times (NYTs) anymore to give us factual data, most of the stories are in political support of left-leaning politics and socialism here in the US.

For instance, the insistence of this article would lead one to believe that Obama's strategy is working and Iran is falling apart, however, similar stories have been played in the past, several of them, but the regime is still going, Ahmagh-injad is still in power and they are still enriching and causing us real problems through proxy terrorism.

Indeed, the NYTs does a lot of damage by purporting this type of information when they clearly don't know the actual issues, only what they think they read from Iranian media or folks on one side of an issue, between all of the misdirection. Am I saying that the NYTs should cease operations as it is not a trusted news source for factual information anymore? Well, I am not going that far, but we just cannot rely on that information you see? Indeed, I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

Our Enviornment

Everyone in the world is facing an insoluble problem. PEOPLE! The world is over populated. We are crowding out everything natural, scenic and living - other than people. We are crowding ourselves out. Few places remain as we knew them from our childhood, no mater what our ages. The world is changing too fast.

If some person or company owns a piece of land, that entity should normally have the right to do whatever he/she/it wants to do with it. In the United States, we have a long tradition that our government has the right and duty to regulate land use for the greater good. The primary reason for regulations generally is: does anyone like a garbage dump or a slaughterhouse next door? Some control is not only desired, but required for health and noise reasons.

Yet, even today we can enjoy sites, views and quietude from lands and access to water places that still remain relatively untouched. Our forefathers did not abuse or befoul those places. We can thank our ancestors for thinking about us, their progeny. Everyone should be smart enough not to shoot themselves in the foot, no matter how egocentric or profit oriented society becomes. Children would be denied their chance to enjoy the environment by destroying the environment that the developers own. The animal world can never be replaced once destroyed or killed off. We can't worry about those who lose their jobs because of necessary conservation restrictions, because we never worried over buggy makers or atom bomb workers losing their jobs.

There is no answer to the growing population problem. Controlling the growth of the population is an impossible solution. That would obligate all countries to participate; for movement out of overpopulated countries cannot be controlled. The intense usage of lands, such as apartment houses everywhere, is a possible solution. But that would require attitudes to change. Another solution is decking over lands that do not require being open to the sky. People in surrounding areas may object, but those objections might have to be overcome. Tight control of water usage is vital and leaves no room for waste. Air pollution is also something that can't be ignored. If we befoul the atmosphere, it might take centuries to correct, if even possible.

The United States is the biggest user of all types of energy and the biggest befoul-er; the U.S. needs strong political will. We don't have that today. Most Americans, even our elected officials are very shortsighted and see other things as more important. The environment is irreplaceable. Parks that are destroyed are gone forever. Open space built upon is no longer open space. Eagles or owls killed off will no longer be seen. What will be left for our progeny to enjoy and see? The environmental concerns should receive long-term top priority, other issues are merely momentary.

More On Charter Schools

Obviously, there are many parents who like and choose charter schools for their children. Additional research revealed surprising results.

The information was garnered from pro charter school publications. Examples from different states show the following: In California, charter schools receive on average $4,800 per student from federal, state and local taxpayer money. That compares with $7,000 that public schools receive. In New York, the average charter-school receives $10,500 per student, compared with $13,300 at traditional public schools.

Chester E. Finn Jr., one of the several reports authors, said that the study of the finances in sixteen states and the District of Columbia, predicted a broad campaign by charter supporters to end finance inequities, including possible lawsuits challenging financing formulas. Many of the reports were funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation and are the work of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute of Washington, DC. Chester E. Finn was assistant secretary of Education of the Reagan administration.

One way the schools, that are chartered, get by with limited funds is by paying their teachers well below union wage scales. The schools, that are chartered, also offer more limited educational opportunities compared to broader programs offered by the public-schools. Public schools offer programs for the handicapped and the disabled, but charter schools refuse to take these on. As previously pointed out, charter schools must pay for the rental of the properties they use, for any improvements needed and probably a profit for the investors. Public schools get all of these items from the state or local governments.

In this author's opinion, the major problems that fostered schools, that are chartered,are incapable public officials. People running for public office claim to be the most capable administrators in order to get elected. After being elected, they are faced with insurmountable problems that they are unable to handle. In most cases, public schools were once the pride of the community. Public schools degenerated for reasons like the schools being mandated to undertake the education of the handicapped and the disabled, without being subsidized for the needs that these students require. There was also the problem that teachers rightly demanded, and in most cases received, improved wages for their work. The taxpayers agreed with the teachers. Yet the taxpayers refused to pay increased taxes to cover all the new expenses of the public-schools. Thus the elected officials were faced with problems they could not solve. Therefore, many elected officials did what is now expected of incompetent government officials; they privatize the problems. That way the elected officials can contract out the problems they can't handle to private companies. It was not so many years ago, when elected officials knew the ball was in their court to solve.

Realize that most governments are hard pressed for money, and don't have enough money for the schools for the public. This funding problem is made worse by the chartered schools; for the charter-schools siphon off funding with every student they take away from the schools for the public. Schools for the public get funding from the number of students attending daily. It is unimaginable to see schools, that are chartered, receiving more public funding at the expense of the schools for the public. As stated, legal action has been proposed for trying to equalize the funding for charter-schools, private profitable schools. It seems impossible to try to equalize the funding.

Your Miracle Is On The Right Side

This might sound like a strange article title but I can assure you that as you read it, you will not consider it strange but inspiring. It might even help you to re-consider your way of doing things.

John 21: 5-6 read then Jesus said to them, children, have you any food? They answered Him, no and He said to them cast the net on the right side of the boat and you will find some so they cast and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of fish. What do you think would have happened if they had cast their net on the left side of the boat? They would not have caught any fish that is what would have happened. Their miracle was on the right side of the boat and it was not a small miracle; there was an abundance of fish waiting to be caught.

My point is very simple; sometime we want the miracle but are not willing to do what it will take to get it. We might think that what we are told to do is silly or foolish, we might wonder what others might think about us doing what God has told us to do or we might think that our way is the best way but if the Lord has given us instructions; that is the side that our miracle is on and it is the right side. What we think or what others think is the left side and we will not get our miracle on that side.

In 2nd Kings Chapter five Na'aman was a man of valor, he had favor with the king of Syria but he was a leper. He went to see the prophet Elisha to be healed but when he got to his house, Elisha sent word to him by his messenger saying, go and wash in the Jordan seven times and your flesh shall be restored to you and you shall be clean. Na'aman became furious and went away and said, indeed I said to myself, he will surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God and wave his hand over the place and heal the leprosy. Are not the Abanah and the Phar-par, the rivers of Damascus better than all the waters of Israel? Notice how Na'aman thought his way was better than the way of the man of God so he went away in a rage and possibly would have remained a leper if it had not been for his servant who said to him, my father, if the prophet had told you to do something great would you not have done it? How much more then, when he says to you wash and be clean. Na'aman listened to his servant and went and dipped himself in the Jordan River seven times and his flesh was restored as a little child and he was clean. If Na'aman had gone to anyone of those other rivers (which was the left side) he would have went down a leper and rose up a leper because his miracle was not in those rivers.

It could be possible that we are not getting miracles in our lives because we are in disobedience to what God has told us to do. It might have sound foolish to us but we need to know that God's ways are not like our ways. He takes the foolish things to confound the wise.

It takes faith to do the abnormal and most of the time our miracles lies in the abnormal things of the world but it is the right side because it has been ordained by God so that we would not be able to claim credit for it.

If we want to receive miracles and miracles in abundance; then we should look in the right place for it and not consider what it might look like to others because what others think is wrong and if we listen to them instead of God; we will be on the left side and not the right side. Persuasiveness by others is the downfall of many.