Much Bigger Than A Single Report...

At the request of the Master and Commander, the Secretary of State has filed a report with the United Nations, stating that his administration is meeting the mandates of the UN's Human Rights Council through efforts that include filing a lawsuit to stop the state of Arizona from enforcing a law that was passed by its elected officials.

Like a number of my fellow Americans, I find it very disturbing that the Obama Administration is reporting one of our state governments to those jokers at the UN as a violator of human rights because of its enforcement of the nation's immigration laws within its borders. This is further proof that the Master and Commander is more concerned with what the world thinks, than what America's citizens think.

In explaining what is wrong with this filing by the Obama Administration, we must start by looking at what is wrong with the United Nations. While this organization does a lot of good in the world through the funding and resources of the world's industrialized nations, it also turns a blind eye to a hell of a lot of really bad things that go on in the world.

This misguided organization will put some of the world's worst human rights violators on its Human Rights Council in the interest of playing fair and making sure that everyone has a turn. The UN deploys peace-keeping forces that have orders to stand by and watch while horrible atrocities occur. The organization also gives an equal voice to some of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, then turns around and views itself as righteous.

"Everyone gets to ride the merry-go-round at school today because it is only fair!" the UN exclaims. Rational Americans reply with disgust, "Even if little Johnny Iran is killing government protesters in the streets, he still gets a turn?!" The UN's answer..."Yes, of course."

Next, we must look at the United States, our long-standing engagement policy with the UN, and how the Obama Administration is changing that policy for the worse. The U.S. has a very strong track record of participation in the UN when it comes to putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way to do good out there in the world, even at times, trying to steer this misguided organization to do the right thing.

We have also, however, had a very strong track record of not participating in a number of the organization's ridiculous propaganda programs, and most importantly, worked hard to ensure that the U.S. does not end up in a submissive position with the UN, something that has long been viewed as detrimental to our security.

To summarize, the United States has had a long-standing policy of involvement in the UN programs that actually make a difference in the world, yet at the same time, has shunned involvement in the organization's misguided propaganda programs that put giving all nations an equal voice above the importance of human rights and security.

All of that, my friends, like so many other things in our lives, is changing under the rule of the Master and Commander. Say what you want to about the Bush Administration, but one thing you cannot say is that at any point did that group of people put what the world thought of us before the security and welfare of the citizens of the United States of America.

You have to reserve that comment for the current administration. It started with a whirlwind tour of the world in the early days of his presidency with the Master and Commander going nation to nation, bowing in submission before world leaders, shaking hands with Hugo Chavez, and apologizing for such things as winning World War II and fighting the War on Terror. Today, it continues with this President bowing to the will of the world, making his own country and its people a secondary priority to world opinion by participating in the latest UN propaganda program.

This participation in UN propaganda is most recently apparent with the filing of a Universal Periodic Review report by the Obama Administration. Implemented in 2006 by the UN, this report that would have been viewed as a "suggestion" by the Bush administration was obviously viewed as a "requirement" by the one-worlders in Washington.

The UN "requires" every member nation to submit a report every four years on what they have done to "improve the human rights situations in their countries and to fulfill their human rights obligations." In addition to filing this report, which breaks from our long-standing policy of not buying into the UN's propaganda programs, the Master and Commander has reported that one of the things his administration has done to comply with the mandates of the UN Human Rights Council is file a lawsuit against the U.S. State of Arizona, seeking to stop the state from enforcing the recently-passed SB 1070 bill, allowing law enforcement officials to question the citizenship and immigration status of people within the state who are suspect of breaking the law.

The UN's Universal Periodic Review and its report are a prime example of a propaganda program. Each nation provides its own report and when looking at the UN's track record of human rights enforcement, it can clearly be seen that this program is nothing more than yet another propaganda piece in the UN's arsenal to win positive public opinion for itself around the world. What do you think China's communist party leaders are putting in their report? What do you think Iran is putting in its report? And even if Iran did own up and report "we're working on not killing people who protest the government anymore", do you think the UN is actually going to do something about it? Their track record definitely points to no.

Throughout the history of the UN, the U.S. has been a strong part of the organization when lives were on the line, but did not buy into their propaganda programs for a very good reason...the strength and security of our nation. The Master and Commander, obviously doesn't agree.

Not only is the current U.S. administration readily buying into the UN's Universal Periodic Review propaganda program, it is apparent that the administration is also willing to sacrifice the will, security, and welfare of its citizens in order to win positive world opinion from a world stage that includes the supporters of our enemies, including the United Nations.

Why I Oppose The Mosque Near Ground Zero

I must admit that I agree more with the people who do not want the Muslim Community Center and Mosque built near Ground Zero than those who do. I do see Mayor Michael Bloomberg's point about being able to build what you want on the land that you own, and I do see the Master and Commander's view on religious freedom in America and the message it might send, though as I said yesterday, I highly disagree with his invocation of the Founding Fathers to make his point, and more importantly, disagree with his position on the issue.

But, do you know what else I see? I see why if your loved one was killed on 9/11/01, you might not want to have to walk by a Muslim Community Center and Mosque with a questionable background on the way to the "hallowed ground" of the World Trade Center to visit the 9/11 memorial, or just to spend some time in the general area that you know your loved one spent the last few minutes of their life.

Do some research, and you will find that there were, in fact, a number of Muslims that died as victims of the attacks, but even the highest most trustworthy estimates put that number at well under 100 of the almost 3,000 victims that perished that day. A much larger number of the victims were believers in Christ-based faiths and Judaism. While the conspiracy theorists, far-leaning thinkers, and honestly, U.S.-haters, do not want us classifying them as such, the 19 men that caused 9/11 considered themselves to be Muslim. Regardless of the merits and beliefs of Islam and how the religious beliefs of most Muslims (especially those here in the U.S.) greatly differ in belief from what was carried out on 9/11, all the evidence seems to point to the fact that these 19 guys considered themselves to be Muslim and considered themselves to be waging a holy war against America and its Christians and Jews. All that being said, you really can see how the families of the victims and a large number of Americans might not want that Muslim Community Center and Mosque built right there, just a couple blocks from Ground Zero. I tend to find myself agreeing with this point.

What I would like to know more about, however, in light of this debate that I am hearing, is the background and financing trail of this group that wants to build this Muslim Community Center and Mosque right there next to Ground Zero. So, show me that this is a 100% completely upstanding group of Muslims who do not believe in violence, and do not believe that the September 11th attacks were something that we had coming, and maybe you will sway me. It just seems right now, that the jury is still out on that.

Do they have ties to terrorist groups and does their money have ties to terrorist groups? It seems no one is able to give us a straight answer on that, including the people that want to build the mosque. The people who want this mosque most definietly do not seem to be able to prove without a reasonable doubt that absolutely none of their money and support comes from extremist groups with an agenda. I do see that as a huge problem and a major part of this story, and my decision, which as I said, leans more towards the fact that this mosque should not be built there.

Yes, Mr. Bloomberg, they own the land and should be able to build what they want to on it by the letter of the law, and yes, Mr. Master and Commander, in that perfect little world that seems to only exist in your mind, we should live by the letter of the law in regards to religious freedom and what that means in America today, however, there are times when you need to look at things subjectively, regardless of what the laws say on paper. Isn't that what you believe about illegal immigration, Senor Obamos?

So, for now, I oppose the building of this mosque that close to Ground Zero. I understand the New York City Mayor's position, but disagree with it. I understand the President of The United States of America's position, but disagree with it, and will go as far as to say that I think he is speaking prematurely and has made a mistake that will cost him and his party some support from the American middle.

I understand what the separation is between the average everyday Muslim and these fanatical extremists, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there are not extremist Muslims with agendas still living and working in this country. And let's not forget what a small group of dedicated, like-minded people out to kill as many Americans as they can are capable of doing.

"The writ of our founders must endure"

When speaking recently on the proposed Muslim Community Center and Mosque to be built near Ground Zero, The Master and Commander commented that "The writ of our founders must endure", referring, of course to, as he said, "our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable".

First off, know that I don't want to go back in time and change anything - I am not saying that this country was founded incorrectly, that we need to fix it (though it would be nice to go back in time and have an America that was always free of slavery), but I do want us to think about something when we think of the Founding Fathers, and most definitely when we invoke their intentions with our fine nation during its initial creation in the context of furthering our political views today (I'm talking to you, Master and Commander).

Think along the lines of me not wanting to go back and change too many things because we will not end up with the same nation that we have today. Sure, there is room for improvement over history, but who knows what you'll end up with if you got back and start tampering with things.

That being said, however, can we all please remember that this nation was founded by a group of white, Christ-based faith believing, mostly slave-owning, straight (definitely in the closet if not) men, who, while progressive for their time in terms of their thinking on government, established a nation that did not allow women the right to vote or own land and allowed for a person to be enslaved in permanent bondage and servitude.

I personally am sick and tired of hearing how it was the intention of this group of men that all men and women of all races (literally every human being on the planet) should be equal in all regards, and should all have equal rights including a civil right to water, food, shelter and public services. I am not saying that I don't believe in this, and I am not saying that I do not want this nation to have those principles today, but what I am saying is let's not go back and revise history in our minds to think that the Founding Fathers, the guys who were at the Continental Congress, fought in the Revolution, and established the framework for the United States of America, believed in these same principles, because quite clearly, they did not.

If you go back and read what most of the founders of the United States of America were writing at the time, you will most definitely see that it was not their intention for non-Christ-based faiths, women voters, women land owners, and people of color to have an equal place in the country as them. White, Christ-fearing land owner, you're in and here's your ballot - all others, some other, lesser role of servitude, and don't bother coming to the polls on election day.

Again, let's stick to our values and what we know to be right, but can we all please stop portraying the Founding Fathers as saints, because quite frankly, they were far from it.

Charlie Brown's B-17

Look carefully at the B-17 and note how shot up it is - one engine dead, tail, horizontal stabilizer and nose shot up. It was ready to fall out of the sky (this is a painting done by an artist from the description of both pilots many years later). Then realize that there is a German ME-109 fighter flying next to it. Now read the story below. I think you'll be surprised...




Charlie Brown was a B-17 Flying Fortress pilot with the 379th Bomber Group at Kimbolton, England. His B-17 was called 'Ye Old Pub' and was in a terrible state, having been hit by flak and fighters. The compass was damaged and they were flying deeper over enemy territory instead of heading home to Kimbolton.

After flying the B-17 over an enemy airfield, a German pilot named Franz Stigler was ordered to take off and shoot down the B-17. When he got near the B-17, he could not believe his eyes. In his words, he "had never seen a plane in such a bad state". The tail and rear section was severely damaged, and the tail gunner wounded. The top gunner was all over the top of the fuselage. The nose was smashed and there were holes everywhere.

Despite having ammunition, Franz flew to the side of the B-17 and looked at Charlie Brown, the pilot. Brown was scared and struggling to control his damaged and blood-stained plane.

Aware that they had no idea where they were going, Franz waved at Charlie to turn 180 degrees. Franz escorted and guided the stricken plane to, and slightly over, the North Sea towards England. He then saluted Charlie Brown and turned away, back to Europe. When Franz landed he told the CO that the plane had been shot down over the sea, and never told the truth to anybody. Charlie Brown and the remaining members of his crew told their commanding officers all about the German pilot at their mission debriefing, but were ordered never to talk about it.

More than 40 years later, Charlie Brown wanted to find the Luftwaffe pilot who saved the crew. After years of research, Franz Stigler was found. He had never talked about the incident, not even at post-war reunions.

They met in the USA at a 379th Bomber Group reunion, together with 25 people who are alive now - all because Franz never fired his guns that day.

When asked why he didn't shoot them down, Stigler later said, "I didn't have the heart to finish those brave men. I flew beside them for a long time. They were trying desperately to get home and I was going to let them do that. I could not have shot at them. It would have been the same as shooting at a man in a parachute."

Both Brown and Stigler died in 2008.

While there are many hoaxes and false tales circulating in email and on the web, this story is true: http://www.snopes.com/military/charliebrown.asp

Americans Owe Less...

You have no doubt heard by now, or perhaps have experienced first hand, that credit is a lot harder to come by than it was just a couple years ago. This may, in fact, not be such a bad thing for American consumers, forcing them to live within their means and drive down debt balances.

In March 2009, outstanding non-mortgage debt in the U.S. was $2.54 Trillion. By March 2010, that number had dropped to $2.45 Trillion. That's just about $9 Billion, but it is a good start in the right direction.

There have now been 18 straight months that have seen the level of revolving debt drop, with $935 Billion in March 2009, down to $853 Billion in March 2010.

Also, there are 16% less Americans that are 90 days behind or more on their credit cards today than a year ago, and 20% less that are 60 days behind or more on a car loan.

Can We Talk About Spending Cuts, Please?...

We are going to be hearing some fierce debate in the coming weeks, and perhaps months, about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. While I do see this as something that we should be debating, the fact remains that the expiration of these tax cuts, as they will be allowed to expire by The Master and Commander, will only affect the top three percent of households in the country. The problem with the equation, however, is that these are the three percent of households that run the small businesses that create the jobs that we need so badly right now. I am hearing from the Master and Commander's Money Manager that they are now, after record-setting spending and borrowing, concerned about the growing national debt, and believe that allowing these tax cuts on people making more than $250,000 a year to expire will help bring down the deficit. Perhaps it will, but I also believe that the expiration of these tax cuts may have an effect on job creation by enterpreneurs. There will be a change in their bottom line and that change could result in them becoming wary of creating new jobs. Unlike the federal government, most people spend less when their income is reduced.

While all of this debate about the tax cuts is needed, I would very much like to see our government leaders, especially those on a particular side of the aisle, talking more about spending cuts. Spending cuts? In the middle of the worst economic crisis in history, with less and less money coming in, you want us to spend less? Now, that's just crazy talk, stupid constituent! There are so, so many ways in which our local, state, and federal governments can cut down on their spending, much in the same way that they have all seen the rest of America do during this crisis. We are not holding the federal government and this administration to the spending cuts that we should be seeing.

For a great example of government waste, I recently read a story about an Orange Country resident who was issued and received by mail a bill from the U.S. IRS for 1-cent. Now, of course, this is a drop in the well, nothing compared to other spending, etc. etc., but it is a good concrete example of somewhere we could start - proof positive that there are places that we could cut wasteful spending - most likely proof positive that if we are seeing waste like this, there is also waste elsewhere that we could cut.

So, as we all get caught up in this debate on the tax cuts, let's watch for the slight of hand and these politicians try to take our eyes away from where we should be looking - forcing them to spend less and save more, just like the rest of us are doing.

$20,000 In "Stimulus" Money For Two Road Signs That Were Up For About A Month...

Make no mistake about it...I love living in Aliso Viejo, and I am planning to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. One of the great things about living where I do is our large number of parks and open areas. Every single street is beautifully landscaped and literally every part of the city is well maintained. We have a great fireworks show every Fourth of July and a lot of community activities, including a brand new aquatic center. Now, we all know that this doesn't come cheap. I currently pay $339.52 a year to the city association to help fund our pleasing-to-the-eye lifestyle.

Another great thing about Aliso Viejo is that thanks to this city association fund, our streets are re-paved much more often than they are in other cities. As soon as you are within the city, you immediately notice how well the streets are maintained. So, earlier this year when signs went up and preparations began for the re-paving of all of the streets around our community, I didn't really give it a second thought. They were just re-paving the streets again. That was, however, until they put up the big green signs at either end of the roadwork stating the re-paving of these roads could be credited back to "The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act".

Now don't get me wrong, at some point down the road if using "stimulus" money right now results in a reduction in my city association dues, I will be pleased as punch, but I find it hard to believe that I am going to see that. I am sure the money saved will just be put into another areas of the community.

Either way, these large green signs got me thinking about all of the areas in other parts of Orange County that could have probably used that stimulus money much more than Aliso Viejo. I began to wonder why with the horrific state of some of the schools in Orange County was this federal stimulus money going to pave the roads in a community where the residents paid an association fee to pave the roads? Didn't this just seem like more government waste?

By the time I was done thinking about it, I was, as usual, pretty steamed. It seemed ridiculous to spend this money on our roads in Aliso Viejo instead of on schools, children's programs, or GOD FORBID! reducing taxes for the middle class!

While I am admittedly sorry that I did not do so, but I had planned on having Teresa take a picture of me standing next to one of those big green signs with the little Soviet flag that is part of my cold war display at the house, but we never got around to it. The roadwork finished up months ago and while I sometimes think on those big green signs once in a while, I have moved on to other things.

That was until today when I ran across this article about my now-gone big green signs. An article that explains, quite simply, that the reason that my roads were being paved instead of money going to schools or reducing tax burdens was to employ the people who were working on the road outside my house.

The true purpose of the project was to ensure those road workers had money in their pockets. Money that they would take outside of our community, back home to theirs, and spend. Exactly how the stimulus money is supposed to work, right? I get it - I'm onboard - I'm part of the team! Well, as much as I can be.

I then, however, began to reflect on what I know about any government-funded projects...the $500 paper clip. Anyone who tells you that a large percentage of the funding for any project doesn't simply get wasted and blown on inflated hourly rates, inflated material costs, and the bureaucracy that makes it all possible, is just flat out lying.

The proof of this is in the fact that my two big green signs supposedly cost $10,000 a piece to make, put up, and take down. Multiple that $10,000 by all of the big green signs that are going up wherever "stimulus" money is being spent across this fine nation, and we, the taxpayer, are spending millions of dollars on those big, temporary green signs.

I think some of the Facebook comments I saw put it best: "Waste our money to let us know you're wasting our money."...and..."Way to go, big government...and thank you, people who support big government. You are doing one hell of a job!"


Signs of the Stimulus
Some Call it Transparency, Others Another Example of Government Waste
By JONATHAN KARL and GREGORY SIMMONS

As the midterm election season approaches, new road signs are popping up everywhere – millions of dollars worth of signs touting "The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" and reminding passers-by that the program is "Putting America Back to Work."

On the road leading to Dulles Airport outside Washington, DC there's a 10' x 11' road sign touting a runway improvement project funded by the federal stimulus. The project cost nearly $15 million and has created 17 jobs, according to recovery.gov.

However, there's another number that caught the eye of ABC News: $10,000. That's how much money the Washington Airports Authority tells ABC News it spent to make and install the sign – a single sign – announcing that the project is "Funded by The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" and is "Putting America Back to Work." The money for the sign was taken out of the budget for the runway improvement project.

ABC News has reached out to a number of states about spending on stimulus signs and learned the state of Illinois has spent $650,000 on about 950 signs and Pennsylvania has spent $157,000 on 70 signs. Other states, like Virginia, Vermont, and Arizona do not sanction any signs.

One state brags it posts signs but manages to keep the process cost-effective. The Tennessee Department of Transportation boasts, "There are a total of 324 signs statewide for a total cost of $12,931 and an average of $37.67 each." The reason for the small cost, they say, is that their signs are small-- about equal to a speed limit sign.

In response to questions by ABC News, Jill Zuckman of the Department of Transportation said, "The best estimate is that states have spent about $5 million of the $28 billion spent on road projects on signs – or less than .02 percent of overall project spending."

Still, some Republicans are crying foul. Congressman Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to Earl Devaney, Chairman of the Recovery Act and Transparency and Accountability Board, requesting an investigation to "determine the scope and impact of the Obama administration's guidance" regarding signs to stimulus recipients.

Rep. Issa writes that the passage of the Stimulus Bill, "has provided an opportunity for the Obama administration to claim political credit for the various projects around the country that have been funded by this redistribution of taxpayer dollars."

At the center of the controversy are a series of guidelines provided to stimulus recipients. In the letter, Rep. Issa cites what he calls "perhaps the most overly political guidance on stimulus advertising" involving the Department of Housing and Urban Development and a stimulus recipient. According to investigators from the oversight committee, HUD provided the Office of Native American Programs with information on "signage requirements." The document suggested a sign template informing the public the projects had been, "Funded By: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Barack Obama, President."

Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL) has joined the chorus of Republican outrage over stimulus signs and claims at least $20 million has been spent on them. He told ABC News, "I think it's a bit of an oxymoron to spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, borrowed money, on a bunch of signs to tell them how we are spending their taxpayer money."

Schock's office provided ABC News with administration guidance on stimulus signs sent to him from a constituent. The document, dated March of 2009, outlines the "General Guidelines for Emblem and Logo Applications." The Recovery Act logo which was provided not only looks oddly similar to the Obama logo from the 2008 campaign but its stated purpose, according to the document, is to act as "a symbol of President Obama's commitment to the American people to invest their tax dollars wisely and put Americans back to work."

Rep. Schock argues that the signs are not a wise investment at all, but rather, a waste of money. He took to the House floor today to offer a bill, "to prevent funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 from being used for physical signage indicating that a project is funded by such Act, and for other purposes."

Massachusetts Democrat James McGovern fired back, "This is the best we can get? Not putting up signs?" He continued, "How about paying for the tax cuts for the rich that my friends on the other side of the aisle passed? Hundreds of billions of dollars in debt that you put on the backs of my kids and my grandkids so that the wealthiest of the wealthy in this country can get a tax break."

When asked about Republican outcry over spending on stimulus signs, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs quipped, " I'm glad the Republicans have noticed the several – nearly 11,000 road projects that are underway this summer."

-Robin Gradison and Avery Miller contributed to this report.

My Take On Illegal Immigration - Part 2

While I view most of it as political fluff, the Master and Commander claims to have done quite a bit already in working towards solving the illegal immigration issue:

"The President and his administration have provided the technical assistance to develop key elements of a bipartisan immigration bill and have taken important steps to make interior enforcement smarter, more effective, and reflective of our values, as well as addressing problems in the detention system to improve accountability and safety."

This may be the only part of what this administration claims to have done that has any substance, though, in reality, all this is saying they have done is dedicate taxpayer funded resources to drafting this new immigration bill and inactively starting working against enforcement of our current immigration laws.

I will talk a bit more on the lawsuit that my federal government just filed against one of the states in our union a bit later, but a good example of this passive stance against enforcement is the fact that one of the reasons cited in this lawsuit for not enforcing current immigration law is that we do not have the facilities to house those that would be detained. So, you just let people break the law because you don't have room for them in your jails? That makes sense. I am sure that will help create a safer America.

"A proposal for comprehensive immigration reform has been presented in the Senate, based on a bipartisan framework the administration helped Senators Schumer and Graham develop."

This bill will be far from bi-partisan by the time it is on the Master and Commander's desk to be signed into law, and really, probably isn't that bipartisan as it stands right now. One party makes a deal with one member of the other party, and all the sudden, a state of bipartisanship exists? I am not buying it.

"The President's unprecedented strategic and integrated approach to border protection and security efforts have increased pressure on illegal trafficking organizations, resulting in record seizures of illegal weapons and bulk cash transiting from the United States to Mexico, lowered average violent crime statistics in states along the Southwest border, and reduced illegal immigration into the United States."

Just because you are doing more than ever before, doesn't necessarily mean that you are doing enough. Record seizures also mean that a record amount of illegal drugs, drug money, and criminals, are still getting through our porous border. While violent crime statistics may be down in the border states, the workload of those trying to enforce our immigration laws is also unprecedented. The reduced number of illegal immigrants has nothing to do with any type of new enforcement methods, or any efforts of the current administration. Illegal immigration is down as a result of America's faltering economy.

"The administration has also eliminated the FBI backlog of background checks for legal immigration applications, and launched a new website that allows legal immigrants to check the status of their applications online and via text message for the first time ever. In its first month alone, three million people registered to receive text message updates on their applications."

This is fantastic news! I am happy to hear it, but I would really like to know how our system is going to handle the millions and millions of applications that are to be filed when amnesty is granted by the passage of the Master and Commander's reform. Who will be in place, and how will they handle that workload? What resources are going to be in place to apprehend and detain those who do not come in and register and those that do not pass the review process?

While these may be some "fine examples" of some of the steps that have been taken, I still think that this administration has been greatly lacking in their response, especially when it comes to securing the border and enforcing our current immigration laws. Where are the numbers that prove that the Master and Commander is taking a stand and enforcing our current immigration laws? Where is the proof that they are doing nothing more than sitting back, waiting, and trying to get through to the coming elections, pushing a bill that will bring about changes that we may not have the resources to support? I just don't see what I was looking for on your website, Master and Commander...

My Take On Illegal Immigration - Part 1

If you type "Barak Obama on illegal immigration" into Bing, the top search result is the Master and Commander's own web site that was created when he was running for office, www.barakobama.com. I decided that I should grab and re-post a part of his plan on how to deal with illegal immigration before it disappears from the site like it was a bad review of General Petraeus on www.moveon.org.

Here is the first part of Obama's web site info (more on the second part later):

The President has made it clear that the only way to truly secure the borders and have an orderly immigration system that honors our traditions as both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants is through comprehensive reform grounded in the principles of responsibility and accountability:

Responsibility from the federal government to secure our borders: The Obama administration takes this responsibility very seriously and has dedicated unprecedented resources to securing our borders and reducing the flow of illegal traffic in both directions.

Responsibility from unscrupulous businesses that break the law: Employers who exploit undocumented workers undermine American workers, and they have to be held accountable.

Responsibility from people who are living in the United States illegally: Undocumented workers who are in good standing must admit that they broke the law, pay taxes and a penalty, learn English, and get right with the law before they can get in line to earn their citizenship.

Comprehensive immigration reform is essential to continuing the tradition of innovation that immigrants have brought to the American economy and to ensuring a level playing field for American workers. It's also essential to providing lasting and dedicated security for our borders.

I agree that we need to overhaul the current immigration system, and that we need to secure the border. I believe that changing current U.S. policy can effect the tide of illegal immigration to the point at which many of illegal immigration's problems can be solved. I believe there is a diplomatic solution, but until your diplomacy starts working, you put boots on the ground to solve the problems now. You use actions and not words. You don't push policy and wait for it to work so that the extra boots are not needed. I sometimes believe this is what the Master and Commander is hoping for; a way to be involved without actually getting involved.

I believe that we should crack down on the businesses that are hiring and exploiting illegal immigrants. Now, I know not every business that hires illegal immigrants is exploiting them, but realistically, I have to think it is widespread enough that we should be doing something about it. While it may be unpopular, in the mean time, until the law changes, we need to enforce the current laws by citing and heavily fining the business owner and deporting the workers that are working for them illegally. It is the letter of the law, regardless of its popularity.

I laugh at the administration's use of the phrase "undocumented workers who are in good standing". That really shows you how the Master and Commander and his administration view our current U.S. immigration policy. They view it as unjust and they want to change it. They, in my opinion, do not view crossing the border into the U.S. illegally as a crime.

You name the laws that we as citizens can break that will continue to leave us in "good standing". Try getting a traffic ticket and not paying it, then see the "standing" in which you find yourself. It should not be up to us to determine which laws we choose to obey and which laws we choose to ignore, and it should most definitely not be up to an illegal immigrant or a Presidential administration to make that decision either.

Since we are knee-deep in changing decades-old policy while the Master and Commander is in command, how about we make these two minor changes? In order to be citizen of the United States, you can no longer just blindly marry into it. If you are a citizen and want to marry a non-citizen, how about that person become a citizen in the same manner that everyone else has to? Also, how about if neither you, nor your wife or partner are citizens, and you just happen to have a baby while you are "visiting" the United States, you and your partner have to apply for citizenship for you and your baby, again, that same way everyone else has to?

That's no immigration by marriage, and no anchor babies. I'll even meet you in the middle and agree that everyone born here from now on, regardless of their parent's citizenship be required to go through a citizenship process at the age of maturity. I'll take your citizenship test and your English test -- bring it on. Oh, and by the way, just to clarify, if I decided to move to France tomorrow and become a member of their collective society, I would have no problem with the understanding that I would have to learn French and pass a citizenship test over there. That's only fair, right?

I know that so many on the other side of the aisle want to paint this as a race and segregation issue, but for many of us, it is just not the case. We are wanting people to abide by the laws like we do, pay taxes like we do, and be just as loyal to our nation as we are.

We want to see you rooting for America, abiding by its laws (all of them), and helping us to continue to build what many of us believe to be the greatest nation in the history of mankind. I always quote back to Dennis Miller who said that he doesn't mind you joining the party, he just would like you to sign the guest book so we know who is here.

Oh, and don't think I purposely glossed over this part: "Undocumented workers who are in good standing must admit that they broke the law, pay taxes and a penalty, learn English, and get right with the law before they can get in line to earn their citizenship." What this means, is that once the new policy is enacted by the Master and Commander, the policy of the United States of America will no longer be to deport people who have entered the country illegally as long as they meet certain criteria, doing away with our current policy of deporting in all cases except for reasons of political asylum.

I am honestly torn on this issue because I do agree with our current law, but at the same time, we have to be realistic about the cost and probability of deporting literally millions of people. If we see a policy that calls for illegal immigrants to actually admit that they have broken the law, agree to pay fines, back taxes and penalties on those back taxes, learn our language, and then get in line to be reviewed for citizenship, just like everyone else, I fully understand that supporting it might be the best thing for everyone.

I would also like to see, however, the resources in place that are ready to act with the full support of the administration to deport the people who do not come in and register, pay their fines, back taxes and penalties and/or who are denied citizenship in the review process for whatever reason. You will excuse my skepticism about the Master and Commander acting against the largest single pool of potential voters and their families and friends who already have the vote once his new immigration policy is in place.

More on this issue later...

Don't Forget To Watch The Oily Magic Show Tonight

I've been refraining from saying it, but I'm just going to go ahead with it already. Can you imagine how apeshit everyone would be going with The White House right now over this oil spill were The Great Satan George Junior still in office right now?

I am hoping that we finally see The Magician grow a pair over this oil spill when he speaks to us tonight. It kinda seems like he's been laying the foundation over the past few days to finally get in BP's face.

While I do understand how after blaming The Bush for eight years, it can be the go to response for Democrats that are appearing on The TV to talk about the oil spill, but really, you are going to need to do better than that. We need to take a long, hard look at oil drilling, its regulations, lack of regulations, and lack of adherance to regulations. Blaming The Great Satan George Junior for this isn't going to get us anywhere. We need to determine if our regulations did enough, if BP met them, and what we do if they did not. We need to quickly ensure all of our offshore drilling rigs have met regulations and get back on track.

Another thing I have noticed that some folks out there are starting to do is to compare the oil spill with Hurricane Katrina. Apples and oranges. Katrina was a swift-moving hurricane that killed people who could not, or just refused to, evacuate out of its path. Katrina's devastation was quick and deadly - killing a large number in a short period of time. It's economic and environmental impact will last for decades.

This oil spill, on the other hand, despite the fast-gushing oil we see at its source, moved relatively slowly over the water. There was well over a month of warning to react to ensure that this oil did not reach the coastline. The spill's devastation will be quick and deadly to a lot of wildlife, but to humans, it's devastation will take some time. Economic impacts will take months and health issues will take years to surface. The environmental impact may be around for well over one hundred years.

But, if we are going to make a comparison, here are some things to think about:

- Think reasonably about all of the other natural disasters that hit America (hurricanes, floods, earthquakes) and you will see that the response to those disasters before, during, and immediately after, all falls into the hands of local and state officials. The federal government doesn't usually get involved until the point at which the state's governor asks for federal assistance. Yet, with Katrina, the blame for a lack of planning, action, and response fell on the federal government, especially after the fact. Why was Katrina different than any other hurricane and who could have possibly known for sure what was going to happen before hand?

- This oil spill is different. This is a man-made disaster that occurred on federal "land" on an offshore oil rig that was OK'd by and regulated by the federal government. Do you see how this was the responsibility of the federal government from the very beginning? Have not, historically, the problems of the federal government fallen at the feet of whoever is President at the time?

- The Great Satan Geroge Junior called for a mandatory evacuation before Katrina hit, and while criticized, it is generally accepted that federal relief efforts were well underway four days after the hurricane hit with emergency funding signed and FEMA engaged. What is often overlooked is that both Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco refused to issue mandatory evacuations of the city despite being advised to do so by the federal government.

What is also overlooked is that in the case of natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, standard emergency management protocol calls for local and state officials to be prepared to manage the situation for three days until a federal response can be made. That would mean that the planning to ensure proper warning, mandatory evacuations, and transportation for citizens would be responsibility of the officials in the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana, not the federal government. Local officials don't really get any of the blame for what happened before, during and after Katrina, though, do they?

- I must say that within four days of the start of this oil spill, I did not see a massive response from the federal government, i.e. the current administration. It really seems like it took them a couple of weeks to even get up to speed on what was really going on and about 45 days before you could see them finally realizing what a big deal this was going to be.

- Bush went to New Orleans eight times in the first 46 days, and was condemned for not visiting enough. Obama took 49 days to visit the Gulf region three times.

The Great Satan George Junior will continue to be criticized for not getting out of his chair on the morning of 9/11 for eight minutes and not getting aid to New Orleans for four days, but I do believe in the long run, history will better remember this oil spill and will better remember that it took The Magician 45 days to realize that this was going to have an effect on his Presidency...oh, I mean, the American people.

It's Finally Time To Comment On The Magician & This Oil Spill...

I have done my best to give this thing time. I have done my best to not be reactionary. I have done my best to not be swayed by media sources. I have still reached the following conclusion, though:

I am not impressed with this administration's efforts to date. While you cannot accuse them of doing nothing, and I do see that significant efforts are being made, I feel that these efforts were not undertaken as quickly as they should have been and while in an "unprecedented" volume, the efforts I am seeing are still not enough. While your efforts on any task may be the most by volume that have ever been done in history, it does not automatically mean that you are doing enough by default.

The Magician says that they explored every alternative, have done all that they could have, and would have tried anything that they know would have worked. I argue that they could have authorized the building of sand barriers along the coastlines much sooner than they did, could have better ensured that more resources were fighting in the water and not waiting until the oil reached the shore. When you are in a crisis, it is wise in the best of circumstances to not undertake efforts that you know will have no effect on the situation, but at the same time, if there is a chance that something will have an effect, you try it. You don't just sit there and wait for a better alternative to be suggested.

I must admit, also, I am bothered by the fact that The Magician has not had a direct conversation with BP's CEO at this point. I don't think the American people are asking you to pick up the phone and shout at the guy, but they are asking you to take command of the situation in the manner that you claim to have done. How do you command a situation when you have not had a direct conversation with the person that is in charge of the most important part of your operations?

I think that we need to take a long look at the fact that while drilling at these "incredible" depths, there are not enough safeguards in place, obviously, to make sure that this does not happen. We should take a long hard look at our drilling policies as a whole. While I understand some people's argument that a lapse in regulation and governance is to blame, we also need to look at the market and supply and demand as it relates to our current environmental policies. We're still using gas, which requires oil. We don't want to see oil rigs off our coastlines, so we force the oil companies to drill further and further out at deeper and deeper depths, then get upset when they cannot repair wells that are too deep. Do you not think that BP would much rather be drilling oil that is under the beach than under a mile of ocean? Why aren't they? Because we've told them that they can't, yet at the same time, demand low gas prices.

While I do appreciate the fact that The Magician has visited the area, I do still make the argument that he has not done so enough. Regardless of the fact of what he can and cannot do personally while there, the American people want to see him down there fixing this thing. A three hour stay on four hours of flight time so that he can get back home for the holiday weekend does not impress me.

Again, whether or not he is effecting the situation, the people of the Gulf Region would have at least liked to have known he was in the area, working well into the night and early morning with local officials, not see him stroll on the beach for a few hours and then go home. How in the world does a politician like The Magician not understand that? Also, I still think The Magician flew to California more times for campaigning this election season than he flew to the Gulf Region since this spill started. That says a lot to me.

The bottom line, Mr. Magician, is that we are not asking you to perform for the cable shows, we are asking you to perform for the American people, especially those that are being directly effected by this oil spill. Sometimes, when you need to get things done, you just don't take the time to figure out exactly whose butt to kick, you kick them all until people and resources get moving and start fixing the problem. Empowering local resources, moving federal resources, taking the time to be cool, calm and collected, you are doing, but commanding, you are not.

The "Unbanked" Walk Among Us

They are called the "unbanked", and as crazy as it may sound to the rest of us, they are the 25.6% of U.S. households that have no standing bank accounts.

Ever wonder how those horrid payday loans and places like CashCall (R.I.P. Gary Coleman) stay in business? The one out of every four households that does not give themselves an alternative because, for whatever the reason, they would rather, or must, pay high fees and loan costs because they do not have a checking account.

A recent FDIC survey shows that this group now includes over 30 million households.

Imagine...no bank to put your money in...no debit card...no credit card...just cash and some hiding places in your house somewhere.

The survey found that the group is made up mostly of the so-called "minority" groups and 71% of the "unbanked" households earn less than $30,000 per year.

As you can imagine, only 18% of America's banks are making efforts to capture this demographic, as most banks do not seek to open branches in "underbanked" areas.

As part of a 2005 law, however, the FDIC is required to track and report industry efforts to bring banking services to the "unbanked".

Some Questions That Popped Into My Head Last Night...

When you change political parties, don't you end up with two sets of people that don't want to re-elect you?

What do you do if you have an allergic reaction to allergy medicine?

Isn't people assuming that I am pro-illegal-immigration racial profiling?

Isn't people assuming you're a racist if you're anti-illegal-immigration a type of racial profiling as well?

Why is it when I take a survey and select that I am of Hispanic dissent, and the survey then asks me what my country of origin is, I have to select "Other" and type in "The United States of America"?

How many other people have a great grandmother that was born in the United States?

Is it not also racial-profiling when people come up to me, start speaking to me in Spanish, then get upset when I cannot understand them? How about when I am at Wal-Mart, wearing a blue shirt, and people think I work there?

Was it really all that crazy after 9/11, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were determined to be from Saudi Arabia, to start stopping people that "looked" Saudi? Would it have made more sense to start stopping everyone with blonde hair, blue eyes, and fair skin?

What about when a crime is committed and the suspect description is a "male Hispanic" so law enforcement starts looking for a male Hispanic...Is that racial profiling? What else are they supposed to do?

Are you going to tell me in all of your life that there has never been a single time when someone has stopped you because it "looked" like you didn't "belong" there? (You must have never driven an old beat up car through Newport Beach before, then.)

Can I share just one night's worth of questions without offending too many people?

Sending A Proposal To UPS Via FedEx?

I am not going to sit here and say that I completely cover every eventuality every time, but c'mon, business world, pay attention to the details!

In a recent Inc. Magazine article in which writers asked decision-makers from some of the world's toughest customers how to get your foot in the door if you are a small business, Kathy Homeyer, director of supplier diversity for UPS, offered the following advice:

"The biggest no-no is not knowing our competition. People will say, 'I've got this really exciting proposal I want you to look at.' I'll say, 'Go ahead and send it to me.' Then, they send it to me by FedEx. It happens everyday. Just be smart. Know the company you are pitching to and know their likes and dislikes. You get such brownie points with me when you come in with a UPS envelope and have an account all set up. It's just the little things like that, the icing on the cake."

Stupid Banks, Leave Me Alone Already About Your Damned Overdraft "Protection"!

They email me once a week. They send me a letter once a week. Leave me alone already, Chase!

An amazing improvement in banking is going to happen on August 15, 2010. Banks will no longer be able to honor debit card transactions that exceed the amount that you actually have in your account without your permission. This means that a $1 purchase will not overdraw you and come with accompanying $34 overdraft fee (well, that's what Chase's letter says they charge - your bank might charge even more). Many Americans have felt the sting of that $35 candy bar, but from now on, unless you tell the bank to authorize transactions in this manner, they can longer stick it to you like that.

So, in accordance with the new credit and debit card laws enacted by the U.S. Congress, I received a letter in the mail from one of the banks I have a debit card from, Chase, telling me that I needed to make a choice...Overdraft, or nor overdraft? A declined $1 purchase, or a paid $1 purchase with a $34 overdraft fee? Needless to say, I quickly went online and told Chase where they could stick their overdraft protection and their $34 fee.

Here's where Chase started really getting on my nerves. Since electing for NO OVERDRAFT, I have been getting email after email and letter after letter warning me of the serious, life-altering mistake that I have made. Naturally, Chase is worried because they are about to no longer be able to literally steal millions and millions of dollars from its customers with these b.s. overdraft charges on debit card purchases $34 at a time. They've never made a dime off of me in fees, and the emails and letters continue!

"When you don't have enough money to make a purchase or pay for something unexpected," the most recent letter exclaims, "Chase Debit Overdraft Coverage may allow your everyday debit card transactions to be authorized at our discretion."

If you're in a real emergency and you need some serious help, that debit card is not going to buy you a ticket home, or a $500 part for your car. The overdraft "protection" that Chase is offering is not going to be enough money to help you out if you are in a real jam. The overdraft "protection" offered to you by these banks on your debit card is designed to make money for the banks from your mistake, or your misfortune.

For any reason, if you overdraw, they will authorize it - oh, you better believe it - but it's not to help you! It's to generate revenue for the bank.

While Chase now limits its $34 dings to three per day, that is not always the case at every bank. Sometimes, there are no daily limits to fees. Imagine if you started your day overdrawn without knowing it and you went in the morning and bought coffee or breakfast. Then, later in the day, you buy a magazine at the book store and lunch to eat while you're reading that magazine. Even later in the day, you stop at the grocery store on the way home, stop and get your dry cleaning, stop and buy pet food, and finally buy dinner at a take-out place.

Oh, you'd better believe your bank is going to pay for your debit card purchases, my friends. In the course of the day, they'll loan you the money because you owe them $34 x 7 transactions to the tune of $238. Don't believe me? Ask around. We've all got at least one friend that has fallen victim to this debit card overdraft "protection" b.s. Again, I have to point out that some banks are starting to limit the number of transactions per day they will ding you with a fee, but for Chase's three times a day limit, that is still $102.

America, don't overdraw - know what's in your account, but more importantly, if you make a mistake and don't know how much you have in your account, don't give these banks the right to gouge you with their overdraft "protection" by agreeing to let them keep this revenue generator on your debit card!

Also, there is a loop hole of which you should be aware. It's hidden in the fine print of your notices, so they hope you get bored with reading the Bank-ese before you get to it, but even though you may COMPLETELY OPT OUT of overdraft "protection", if you have recurring automatic charges set up to bill to your debit card and one or more of those recurring charges causes you to be overdrawn, the bank does still have the right to pay it because your recurring payment has authorized them to do so, regardless of what you have and have not agreed to in terms of Overdraft. So, don't put your recurring automatic charges on a debit card. Put then on a credit card instead.

Again, the bottom line is that the best thing you can do is always know exactly what is in your accounts at all times, know what transactions are hitting the bank automatically, and be conscious of all of this when you are out and about town spending money with your cards. Needless to say, we're not perfect, so in the case of an unexpected event, make sure you've declined that overdraft protection so the bank cannot take you for hundreds of dollars in fees.

Oh, and by the way, Chase, if you're reading this - stop emailing me and stop sending me letters, trying to scare me into giving you free money!

The Changing American Landscape

Deliver Magazine recently reported that the 2010 U.S. Census will find 309 million people living in the United States. The magazine, which provides insight for direct marketers, reports that the concept of the "Average American" is being replaced by a "complex, multidimensional society that defies simplistic labeling," according to demographics expert Peter Francese. Here are some of the facts about America's changing landscape:

In the two largest states by population, California and Texas, and in all of the 10 largest U.S. cities, no racial or ethnic category holds a majority.

Only 22% of U.S. households are made up of a married couple with children.

There are 50 million people of Hispanic descent living in the U.S. They are the nation's largest and most rapidly growing marketing category.

By 2015, white non-Hispanics will no longer account for a majority of the births nationwide.

85% of the nation's growth in population over the past decade occurred in the South and West.

5 million U.S. residents moved from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and West in the past decade. Is that why my roads and beaches are 300% more crowded than they were when I was growing up?

2/3 of the immigrants who arrived in the past decade (about 10 million) settled in the South and West.

3/5 of all U.S. residents live in the South and West today.

How Faux Is Your Faux Fur? Chances Are It's Not 100% Fake...

In 2000, the U.S. Congress passed a law that banned the sale of dog and cat fur in the United States.

This law was designed to stop Chinese manufacturers from a practice of sneaking in cheaper dog and cat fur into garments labeled as "faux fur".

While commendable, the problem is that the U.S. Congress, as it usually does, left a bit of a loophole. Any garment trimmed with $150 or less worth of real fur can be sold without any label, therefore, giving manufacturers in China the ability to substitute faux fur with real dog and cat fur and not have to put a label on the garment stating that they had done so. Without a label stating that a garment was made using real animal fur, American consumers just assume that the garment was made with faux fur.

Both the House and the Senate are currently working on bills that will close this loophole, stating that garments with ANY amount of animal fur must be labeled. Over 75 million animals are killed around the world for their fur each year, with 2 million dogs and cats being killed in China alone.

Hopefully, this legislation will help to reduce those numbers.

Ours Is Not A New Struggle...

What is the one thing that my Great-Grandmother remembers most about the family business my Great-Grandfather had in the 1940s and 1950s? You guessed it. The ridiculous amount of taxes they had to pay. Ours is not a new struggle, my friends...

May 1, 2010

Not only does May 1 have a wide array of meanings around the world, the meaning of the day itself is continually being modified and changed, even today.

In recent years, America's labor unions have been using the "May Day" holiday to showcase the plight of illegal immigrants, attempting to stay relevant in an America where an ever-growing portion of the GDP is no longer controlled by union labor.

For those of us who grew up during the Cold War, we may remember May Day as the day the Soviet Union paraded all of its nuclear weapons through Red Square as the Soviets celebrated the might of their workforce and took advantage of an opportunity to show the evil capitalists of the world what would be waiting for them were the stupid enough to invade their territory. It's also functioned as a great way to showcase Kremlin power to anyone within the family who was thinking of questioning their power.

Were you around in America in 1886, May Day would most likely signify the day in which the workers rose up against the evil industrialists and sacrificed wages, and even some, their very lives, to bring the work day down from 16 to 8 hours.

As I personally plow well into my 13th hour on the job for the day, hoping to compile some blog posts for the coming week, I decided to spend just a few minutes researching a bit more about May Day in America.

The U.S. version of May Day can trace its origins back to 1884. That October, after having been unsuccessful in obtaining a standard 8 hour work day for laborers, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions passed a resolution that called for a general strike on May 1, 1886, should the 8 hour work day not be in place by then. When May 1, 1886 finally rolled around, the 8 hour work day was still not in place, so large numbers of laborers walked off the job. There were 10,000 demonstrators in New York, 11,000 in Detroit, another 10,000 in Milwaukee, and at the movement's center in Chicago, over 40,000 workers took the streets. Today, estimates put the May 1, 1886 walk-outs at close to 500,000 people.

Two days later, still on strike, a group of laborers met near the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company in Chicago. Most of them had been locked out of their jobs since February in a labor dispute, replaced by non-union workers. While some non-union workers joined the strike on May 1, on May 3, there was still a good-sized non-union work force working at the company. When the end-of-the-workday bell sounded on May 3, union workers surged towards non-union workers and were fired upon by police. Two union workers were killed.

Outraged at this police action, anarchists who had been inciting both sides throughout the past few days, distributed flyers for a rally to be held on May 4 to protest the action of police and strikebreakers. Remarkably, the rally itself was very peaceful, but unfortunately, as the last speaker was finishing up his speech, a pipe bomb was thrown at a police line, killing an officer and wounding a number of others. Police fired on the crowd and an all-out riot ensued.

Eight men were arrested as being responsible for the incident, known as the Haymarket Affair. Seven were convicted and sentenced to death. Two men had their sentences commuted to life in prison, one man killed himself in prison, and ultimately, four were hanged for the death of the police officer.

I've done my best to summarize the Haymarket Affair here, but urge you to read more about it. It really is a long and complicated part of American history.

Despite the setbacks to American Labor Unions with the May Day strike in 1886, the unions continued to fight and many laborers in a number of industries were granted shorter and shorter work days, until, in 1916, the U.S. Adamson Act established the 8 hour work day for railroad workers. This was the first federal law that regulated the hours of workers in private companies. Then, in 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act under the New Deal, established the 8 hour work day for all Americans.

This is a truly fascinating story. I am more and more amazed with the more that I read. Most fascinating, clearly, is how the push and pull of outside influences helped to shape American labor policy. As many of you know, despite my interest in this segment of history, I continue to be troubled by the roles of labor unions and their leadership in the American landscape today.

As a six-month member of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (1990, when I was 15 years-old) who gave well over 50% of the first paycheck I earned in my life to a labor union, let me be the first to stand up and say that while I understand there is a role for unions today in some circles, I tend to agree with the fact that, in many cases, they are just no longer needed.

Following my first job at Lucky's Grocery Store, during which I was required to be a member of the UFCW, I have gone on to what I believe to be a rather good career and a decent wage and decent work load, despite the fact that I have spent close to 20 years now as a non-union worker. I've watched strike after strike over the years and partially agreed with some, but honestly, for the most part, completely disagreed with most of them.

I think my biggest problem with labor unions is the political spin they tend to put on things. I think union members tend to believe that unions care much more about them and their families than they really do. Unions claim time and time again that strikes are not about the money, but I tend to disagree with that statement.

Unions use political posturing and political pressure to in turn get union members what they want so union leadership will appear to care, all the while, relying on the workers themselves for their own salaries.

The recent large May Day rallies that are put on by the labor unions, anarchists, and communists that sucker workers into marching for their "rights" have really helped to solidify my position on the labor unions and their May Day holiday. As I felt with the UFCW strikes over the years, these large May Day rallies are exploitation of a group of people and a cause for the political and monetary gain of union leaders. I just wish more people could see through the smoke and mirrors.

My research also led me down the path of another face of May 1. Did you know that in the United States of America, May 1 is officially Loyalty Day? The holiday was first observed in 1921 as "Americanization Day" and was intended to counterbalance the celebration of Labor Day in the US. Labor Day is an internationally celebrated holiday that was perceived at the time to be a communist threat to America. While May Day's modern origins were here at home in 1886, by 1921, the day was being celebrated around the world as Labor Day, particularly by the growing communist world.

Loyalty Day was enacted as an official holiday in 1958 by President Eisenhower and first officially observed in 1959. Today, Loyalty Day is celebrated with parades and ceremonies in several U.S. communities, although many people in the United States remain unaware of it. Although a legal holiday, it is not a federal holiday, and is not commonly observed. Well, guess who is going to start observing Loyalty Day today?

I join a host of Eisenhower's successors who issued official proclamations in support of Loyalty Day, including H.W. Bush, The Great Satan George Junior, Uncle Ronnie, Gerry Ford, and even...are you ready for it?....JFK and Willy Jeff.

So, this year on yet another exploitative May Day, as I have been up for about 20-and-a-half-hours (working close to 17 of them), I am already celebrating the second hour of Loyalty Day! Loyalty to these United States of America. Loyalty to capitalism. Loyalty to the values that built this nation. Loyalty to the law of the land, which I have been known to adhere to on 99.9% of occasions.

Here's My Quandary...

Here's my quandary, guy at the gas station asking for money while I am paying a ridiculous amount of money to put gas in my car: If you didn't have enough gas to get back to Riverside, why'd you come down here in the first place?

My favorite of these many incidents that I have been forced to endure occurred during my Quietly Working days.

I had pulled an all-nighter and was really sick to my stomach at the time. I needed to go down to the office to get some stuff to work on later in the day and on my way to the office, I had to make a detour to get some gas.

Before I could even make it to the gas station, I am behind a strip mall, hurling into a dumpster. After gaining my composure, I then head to get gas so I can get to the office and get home for some sleep before getting back to work. Those of you who know me know that I won't let a little thing like a stomach flu get in the way of getting my work done.

So, as the sun just starts coming up and I stop at the Chevron on PCH in Newport Beach, this guy comes over to me and asks me if he can have some money because he needs to get back to Riverside.

I found myself instantly sorry that I had wasted a good hurling in the dumpster instead of doing so on his shoes. I work for my money, Mr. Beggar, and I do it while sick as a dog. How dare you come ask me for some of my money, especially when you look like a healthy, able-bodied person, obviously of enough whit and determination to try to scam me of out some of my hard-earned cash! I do, however, love the look on their faces when I, unlike I am sure so many of their other victims, say, simply, "Nope," and keep going on about my business.

"Work," I Said...

Teresa asked me what I used to do during Spring Break. She wasn't surprised at the answer..."Work," I said.

Happy National Stress Awareness Day!

Did you know that April is National Stress Awareness Month? Did you know that today, April 16th is Stress Awareness Day? Does it stress you out that you didn't know that? Now that we have reached the point in this country where we are stressing about stress, I thought I'd share some interesting numbers from Fast Company magazine with you:

1/3 of American children ages 8 to 17 say they worry about their family's finances.

2 other major sources of childhood stress are homework and teasing.

To cope, 44% of kids listen to music, 26% eat, and 22% actually talk to their parents.

Americans spend $14 billion on stress-relieving products each year.

There are actually 2 kinds of stress. Distress, which we all know, and eustress, a positive form that improves productivity and performance.

The word we know as "stress" has had its meaning since the 20th century, but can trace its roots back the Old French/Middle English word "destresse" or "distress".

3/5 of doctor visits around the world are as a result of stress.

Americans spend $22.8 billion on anxiety-related healthcare each year.

275 million work days are lost in the U.S. each year because of people taking "stress" days.

These "stress" days cost employers $602 per worker per year.

62% of Americans claim to be stressed about work.

Eating 1.4 ounces of dark chocolate every day for two weeks has shown to reduce stress, of course, according to a 30-person study done by a team of researchers from Nestle.

A study completed in 1938 and re-given in 2007 showed that high school and college students were 5-times more stressed out going into the Great Recession than they were during the end of the Great Depression.

2/3 of spoken curse words are a result of stress (the other 1/3 must be just for fun!).

80 of the 15,000 words typically spoken per person per day are swear words.

The Grandparent Economy

Grandparents.com, a site which is dispelling the myth about grandparents and computers, recently commissioned a study that it coined the Grandparent Economy. Here is what it found:

3 out of 10 adults are grandparents - an all-time high.

Grandparents spend $100 billion a year on entertainment and $77 billion a year on travel-related expenses.

The average net worth of households by 55- to 64-year olds (66% of which are grandparent led) is $254,000. This is the highest of any age group.

Grandparent spending has grown 7.6% per year since 2000 - nearly double the annual rate for other consumers.

Grandparents spend $2 trillion on goods and services each year, roughly 1/3 of all spending.

The grandparent population is larger then either the African-American or Hispanic population segments.

A recent article by Deliver Magazine urged marketers to get away from traditional advertising that showed grandparents sitting docile, staring off into the horizon and appeal more to the active lifestyle of today's early Baby Boomers. "Be authentic and honest," says David Martino, president of Martino and Binzer, a Connecticut-based agency that caters to direct mail clients. "Showcase a product's benefits and try an ageless marketing approach combined with hyper-tartgeting."

Socialist Dreams Not Working Out In Venezuela

Venezuela and Hugo Chavez are on the ropes. Chavez's dream of spreading "21st century socialism" throughout Latin America is being stalled by a sluggish economy both at home and abroad.

When Chavez came to power in 1999, he quickly mobilized to make the most of the country's state-owned oil production, but has reportedly blown most of the windfalls of cash buying the favor of the world's other socialist nations.

Chavez's runaway spending on social programs amid declining state revenue is further putting the nation's economy into turmoil. In 2002, following a failed coup, Venezuela's economy experienced a sharp downturn when the government-owned oil company went on strike for two months to protest Chavez's regime.

While rising oil prices in the following years would help the economy recover temporarily, declining oil prices in recent years have had a substantial negative effect as well.

Add to the mix the fact that in response to the strike, Chavez implemented a policy forcing 10% of the state-owned oil company's profits be put directly into his social programs, and you have a recipe for financial disaster.

Oil accounts for 80% of Venezuela's exports, 50% of the government's income, and about one-third of overall GDP.

In 2007, Chavez nationalized the country's electricity grid with the plans of expanding production output at Venezuela's two large hydroelectric dams that provide 70% of the country's electricity. The expansion, however, never came to pass, and the government was forced to order rolling blackouts. A lengthy drought is also further impacting electricity output at the dams.

The latest threat to Venezuela's economy is inflation. The country's economy shrunk by 4.5% last year and will shrink another 2% this year, making it the only Latin American nation still in full recession.

In Venezuela, the exchange rate between the country's bolivar and the dollar is also set by the government. It had been set at 2.15 bolivars per dollar in 2005, but in January 2010, Chavez set the rate to 2.6 bolivars for food, medicine, and other important imports, and to 4.6 bolivars for non-essential goods. This devaluation of the bolivar will have Venezuela seeing 45% inflation in 2010 and 27% inflation in 2011.

Chavez is trying to fight the inflation he caused by forcing 70 businesses to close for increasing their prices to keep up with costs, hoping to scare other businesses into eating the cost of his inflation, but panicked buying continues.

Chavez has also nationalized about 25% of Venezuela's banking system to try to get the economy back under control as well, but it would seem that nationalization of more and more of Venezuela's economy is not doing the trick.

Despite a rapidly failing economy, however, most likely driven by the country's growing social programs, Chavez's popularity rating remains close to 50%. Proof positive that popularity polls have no reflection on the true financial stability or health of a nation.

Time To Start Using & Measuring Social Media

If your organization is not Tweeting, Facebooking, YouTubing, or LinkedIn-in', then you are really behind the curve! I know you may not want to hear that, but it is true.

The 2008 Presidential Election showed that technology can have a real impact on campaigns, and the 2010 Mid-Term Elections will be no different. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has offered to teach Tweeting to anyone in his party who does not know how.

Businesses throughout the world are quickly clamoring to get Tweeting, get Facebook Fan Pages up and running, get videos on YouTube, and to quite literally, get LinkedIn. If your enterprise is not doing the same, you'd better get caught up quickly. Social media needs to start becoming part of all of your advertising and marketing campaigns.

You may be asking yourself what the value of putting your time into social media really is. Let me tell you right now, I'm not saying to stop paying for web site hosting, throw out your collateral, stop networking in person, and stop making phone calls, but I am saying that if you want to stay viable in your market, social media should be playing a larger and larger part of your advertising and marketing efforts.

With each passing day, more and more people are signing up on Twitter and Facebook and are bookmarking those pages as their home pages and/or using smart phones to check them as regularly as email.

Instead of starting out on a search engine to find your business, more and more often, web users are starting out with your Twitter or Facebook page. If you are not ensuring that anything of importance that you are uploading to your web site is also going onto the social media sites, you may be missing out on an ever-increasing segment of your potential customers.

Stop reaching potential customers and you are going to stop making sales. Sales aren't going to dry up overnight, but they may gradually over time if you don't jump on the social media bandwagon.

How do you get started? Get signed up. Go to http://www.twitter.com/ and http://www.facebook.com/ and start pages for your business. Start tweeting and posting any newsworthy events and start inviting your customers and prospects to follow you or become a fan of your Facebook page.

You will be amazed at how many of your contacts are not only using these sites, but are spending quite a large amount of time on them. If you have any business videos, go to http://www.youtube.com/, get a YouTube channel set up and get your videos posted.

Also, go to http://www.linkedin.com/ and make sure that you have a LinkedIn page set up for both you personally and your business. Customers will have greater confidence in you and your products and services when they see that you are in tune with the growing importance of social media.

It will be difficult to keep up with posting and you will be very tempted to just let it fall by the way side, but create a campaign schedule and set aside time each day to post, read and respond on the major social media sites.

While you may not get a phone call right away that says, "I saw your tweet and now I want to buy something," you will begin to notice that social media is helping to keep the buzz about your business going strong. It keeps your name out in front of customers, showcases your expertise, and adds just the right amount of icing to the cake.

To get a clear view of the value of your efforts, start tracking your results. Record on a daily or weekly basis, the number of followers, number of fans, number of video hits, etc. Record the number of posts that you are making and the number of times people are either re-tweeting, re-posting, or somehow sharing your tweets and posts with others. Be sure that you are using Twitter's hash tags and the other valuable tools the social media sites offer for tracking.

In a March 8 B to B Magazine article, Mitch Wagner stated, "Despite marketers' widespread use of Web analytics, social media remains largely unmeasured by b-to-b companies." This fact gives you a great opportunity to catch up to the herd by beginning your social media efforts, then to quickly move to the front of the pack by tracking your results.

Now, keep in mind, this is a high-level overview. You are going to have to set aside some time to spend visiting the social media sites, signing up, using them, and discovering what works and does not work.

Despite your reservations about spending the time it will take, I think you will be pleasantly surprised with the results of how well social media may work for you and your business.

"This Things I Believe..."

I do not support raising taxes for the sake of fairness, regardless of the negative impact it is likely to have on the economy. In fact, I support equal taxation by percentage across the board, regardless of income levels.

I believe the federal government has gone too far in bailing out the auto, insurance and finance industries.

I do not support illegal immigration. I also realize that a solution that is completely in line with my principles and ideals is not practical. I support a registration program that includes a fine as penalty and requires the payment of estimated back taxes implemented simultaneously with a new guest worker program.

I believe that English should be the official language of the United States, though we have to give new arrivals a chance to learn the language, even if we help them on the government's dime.

I have not completely agreed with the large expansion in social spending and welfare that we have seen over the past decade and I believe that the time to start cutting back benefits is just around the corner. There should be length of time, education and work requirements for all able-bodied Americans on welfare programs.

I believe that if the effort that recently went into socialized medicine had gone into creating jobs, we would be better off today.

I did not support the creation of a national health insurance program administered by the U.S. Federal Government. While recognizing the need for reform, a completely partisan bill rammed through the congress was not the right solution, especially from a man who said he was going to unite the country. I believe that once the federal government is dictating prices and eligibility to doctors and hospitals, the quality and availability of healthcare will be greatly reduced. Those with no insurance will now have insurance at the cost of the 50% of Americans that actually pay income taxes and those who already had insurance will see the quality of their care decline. I also believe that the development of new medicine and treatments will greatly suffer under the weight of this new federal health insurance program.

I believe that we should eliminate teacher tenure and increase the use of performance standards and accountability.

I believe that our armed forces should remain an all-volunteer force.

I do not believe that federal employees should be allowed to unionize if they serve in positions critical to safety and security. I do believe that union elections and initiatives should have secret ballots.

As The Highest NASDAQ Closing In History Turns 10 Years Old...

Today marks the 10th Anniversary of the NASDAQ Peaking at 5,048.62.

An entire decade has passed and we are nowhere near the numbers when the tech bubble burst in 2000. Right now, the NASDAQ is at 2,431. Some things have changed since then, though. Fast Company has given us the following to reflect upon:

World's Richest Man Then: Bill Gates
World's Richest Man Now: Bill Gates

U.S. Cell Phone Penetration Then: 34%
U.S. Cell Phone Penetration Now: 89%

Number Of Daily Newspapers In The U.S. Then: 1,480
Number Of Daily Newspapers In The U.S. Now: 1,422

No. 1 Web Site Then: AOL
No. 1 Web Site Now: Google

Internet Users Worldwide Then: 360 Million
Internet Users Worldwide Now: 1.7 Billion

No. 1 Auto Manufacturer In The World Then: General Motors
No. 1 Auto Manufacturer In The World Now: Toyota

Keep Your Eye Out For The Brown M&M's

A recent Fast Company Magazine article pointed out some different ways that people are looking at data for tell-tale signs of what the future may hold. For instance, Johns Hopkins University researchers took a look at the attendance patterns and grade patterns of students who had dropped out of high school and found that students who missed more than one out of every five days of class, or students who had failed either an English or math class were most likely to not finish high school. 78% of those missing one out of five days, and 75% of those who had failed either an English or math class were destined to drop out. By knowing this pattern, educators can begin to identify troubled students earlier and, perhaps, turn that student around before it is too late.

Credit card companies are now spending a good deal of money ensuring that they are able to track your "normal" spending patters because it helps them identify when someone is using your card, perhaps, even before you come to the realization that it has been lost or stolen.

The article also pointed out that data that can foretell the future doesn't have to be high tech, and in some cases, doesn't even have to be numerical. As the magazine points out, consider how Van Halen would determine whether or not their equipment had been set up properly during their 1980s-era heyday concerts...brown M&M's. Due to the large amount of equipment and minute details that were required to put on one of these extremely large, extremely costly, and potentially extremely profitable concerts, the band needed to ensure that their set-up instructions had been followed precisely by the venue. How did the band know whether they were good to go, or whether they needed to quickly avoid show disasters by having all of their equipment (nine full-size truck trailers worth, by the way) re-checked? According to David Lee Roth, all he had to do was look at the bowl of M&M's in the dressing room and see whether or not it had brown M&M's in it.

The contract between the band and the concert venues was often so large that required steps were often missed or skipped due to time constraints, so in order to give themselves a clear view of whether or not these instructions were followed properly, the band inserted what they called "Article 126," which read, "There will be no brown M&M's in the backstage area, upon pain of forfeiture of the show, with full compensation." So, if David Lee Roth didn't see brown M&M's, the band was confident the contract had been read and followed, but if he saw brown M&M's in the bowl, that meant it was time to yell at some venue reps because chances were, the band's equipment had not been set up properly.