2016: Obama's America - Movie Review

Produced by Gerald Molen, written and starring Dinesh D'Souza.

2016: Obama's America is a well-made documentary exploring Obama's history, and which asks the following question "Who were Barack Obama's forefathers?" This is a question that was not answered to any degree before Barack Obama's election in 2008 (though there were those who tried to sound the call). Voters were so eager for "hope and change" and so eager to elect the first nonwhite president that they didn't look at or care about his radical background - a background steeped in Marxist, socialist, anticolonial, anticapitalist, anti-Israel, and anti-America ideologies. Some pundits say that the background and history of the candidate (or president) shouldn't be delved into like this. That it's unpatriotic. What?? A person's past and his background are predictors of his future actions. Not always of course, but more often than not for sure.

The early moments of 2016: Obama's America tell Dinesh D'souza's history, which he points out is very similar to Barack Obama's history. They are born the same year, they graduated college the same year, they both went to an Ivy League college, they both were married the same year, and they both grew up in impoverished third-world countries where anticolonialism is prevalent.

2016 then takes the viewer to Africa, the home of Obama's father, his forefathers, and much of his family. Here we learn story of Obama's visit to Kenya after the death of his father and we meet at least one of his relatives. D'Souza spoke to Obama's half brother George Obama, who wrote a book in 2010 despite having only finished the 7th grade. D'Souza asks George Obama if he thinks his brother Barack should help him in some way. George suggests pridefully that he is a grown man and can help himself. Incidentally, the two met in a park, so obviously George did not want to have his home on film, which Dinesh suggests is very small. My question is, the president's brother wrote a book and he still lives in a hut?

Indonesia was also visited by D'Souza and the film crew. Barack Obama (Barry Soetoro at the time) spent a portion of his childhood growing up there, going to a Muslim school as an Indonesian citizen, and according to the president's book, eating dog. Hawaii was also a backdrop for some of the film.

2016 uncovers, as much as any documentary can with this secretive person, the president's background and shows who his father and mother were, shows who his mentors and teachers were, and shows the company Barack Obama kept himself immersed in, all of which reveal that he is no garden-variety Democrat or liberal but rather that he has an extremely left-of-center philosophy founded upon anticolonialism, and anticapitalism.

The film points out that everything that President Obama is doing is purposeful and are not just bumbling attempts at doing what is right for the country. His spending and increases in debt are meant to weaken America's position in the world, the economic stimulus was meant to hobble the economy, and his giveaways to other countries are meant to spread the U.S. wealth.

The film also asks and attempts to answer another question, "If Obama wins a second term, where will we be in 2016?" According to the film and the experts that D'Souza speaks to, America will be further down the road to socialism, it will be further diminished as a world power, even to the point where it will be vulnerable and unable to deter wars anywhere in the world. The wealth of individual citizens will continue to decrease as well as the country's wealth on the whole.

David M. Walker, who served as United States Comptroller General, had some sobering things to say about the debt and deficit suggesting that we are fast heading down the road of Greece and Spain. When the debt is the same as the yearly GDP (Gross Domestic Product) or near it, I'd say he is right. (On a side note, I hope Mitt Romney appoints David Walker treasury secretary when he is elected.)

If you want to know more about Barack Obama, you will learn a lot about him from this documentary, much of which in fact is based upon Barack Obama's two autobiographies. D'Souza starts with facts he learns in those to build a foundation of knowledge about someone that he suggests is one of the most unknown people ever elected to the office of president.

2016: Obama's America is expanding its reach in theaters. Check for a theater near you.

D'Souza's book, Obama's America is an even more detailed look at the same subject matter and you can get it here: Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream

Stimulus Doesn't Work

Click to view larger image

This chart by Obama administration economists Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer was amended by James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). It really shows the failure of the Obama administration's economic policies, especially the economic stimulus plan.

Romney/Ryan 2012

The choice yesterday by Governor Mitt Romney of conservative Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential candidate is a brilliant one and it's a winning ticket for the Republicans in 2012, not to mention everyone else. This choice shows that Mitt Romney is concerned about America's stagnant economy and will help to unleash businesses to grow. A successful businessman and a budget knowledgeable Washington politician are the right cure for what ails the flagging economy.

Did you know that Paul Ryan is just 42 years old but has been in Congress for more than 12 years? He is also chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Both of these men are for less government, something important to many Americans, including the Tea Party who will probably embrace the choice of Mr. Ryan. Less government and less ambition for what government should do will equal lower taxes for everyone, solidify America's credit rating again, and strengthen the economy. An unleashed business sector will increase revenues to the government, reducing borrowing and improving the U.S. debt and deficit positions. Salaries and job growth will rise because companies will be selling more products. The stock market will rise because companies will be doing better.

Additionally, both of these men care about smart healthcare reform and will work to repeal and/or neuter the costly and invasive Obamacare.

It is indeed time for America to come back. Romney and Ryan will lead this country toward a better 21st century and do it from the front, not from behind.

9/11 Photo Books Available Now

Be sure to check out the new books New Jersey 9/11 Memorials - A Photographic Guide and The National 9/11 Memorials - A Photographic Guide. One is a photo book of more than 80 different New Jersey September 11 memorials with information about each, a chapter on the history leading up to the terrorist attack, a timeline of the day itself and events of the following years. Also included is a chapter with all of the victims and first responders names, as well as a foreword by Thomas Kean, former governor of New Jersey and Chairman of the 9/11 Commission. 

The other book, The National 9/11 Memorials, has dozens of photos of the four nationally important 9/11 memorials with information about each, a chapter on the history leading up to the terrorist attack, a timeline of the day itself and events of the following years. Also included is a chapter with all of the victims and first responders names.

Laser Beam from Space?

Happy Independence Day! Have a look at these pictures of the Edison, New Jersey fireworks display on the 4th of July, 2012. Is what showed up in these pictures a laser beam from space? Is it a laser shot up to the sky from the ground? Is it a quantum energy trail? Is it a purple fireworks trail? Or is it just a digital artifact (anomaly) from my Olympus SP560UZ camera. These pictures were shot in burst mode, which is when the camera shoots a bunch of pictures in rapid-fire sequence. Myself, I'm going with the artifact theory. But you never know. Comment below and let me know what you think. If you click on each picture you will see the original sized version.

Here is the first captured occurrence of the beam. It is at the top center of the picture. Click to enlarge.

This is the frame right before the second occurrence. Click to enlarge.

This is the money shot. Click to enlarge.

This is the frame immediately following the previous shot. Interesting. Click to enlarge.

Spider-man Sent to Recycle Bin

Review of the new movie The Amazing Spider-man at Bigscreen Ballyhoo.

Individual Liberty Fail

It's a dark day for America as the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the healthcare insurance reform act known as Obamacare, with its mandate for people to buy healthcare insurance, is constitutional.

The only good thing about the ruling is that it will energize the majority of Americans who are against imposed healthcare insurance to elect a President Romney in November. Then it will be Repeal and Replace in 2013.

Four more years of this?

 This Mitt Romney ad hits the electoral target. It's about the economy and this is the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.


.@BarackObama is out of touch with the struggling middle class, claiming that the private sector is doing fine

See also this article at Investor's Business Daily.com which paints an even more negative record for this president.

We don't need four more years of a dysfunctional economy.

Oil Production and Use in 2012

Here is a great article at Reason.com concerning oil usage and production and why we shouldn't be too worried about there not being enough of it for the future. It seems to me that the only thing that will cause high oil and gasoline prices, less availability, and more dependence on Middle East oil is government restrictions on drilling in the U.S. and other friendly countries. I especially like the pistachio comparison in the article. Hat tip to Bonjour Planet Earth.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/01/why-well-never-run-out-of-oil

Facebook Goes Public

If there has ever been a sure thing in the world of investing it is that Facebook, the social media king of planet Earth, at least in the short term, is going to make investors tons of money with its stock offering today. The company is going to become a publicly traded corporation today with its IPO (initial public offering). Look for the stock to soar straight up on its opening day and to be worth ten times its offer price in the near future.

Look at Amazon, Google, and Apple. Facebook is at least as hot as these companies and they are valued in the hundreds of dollars per share of stock. Sure these companies sell actual product, but Facebook has found a working business model and it is a product that consumers love to use, despite its ill-conceived (and I say doomed) Timeline redesign.

Facebook is slated to offer shares of its stock in the $35 to $38 dollar range, but the price won't be there for long. Buy this stock early.

Monumental - In Search of America's National Treasure -- Movie Review

I recently watched Monumental - In Search of America's National Treasure with my friend Rob. We were in a packed theater in North Brunswick, New Jersey on opening night participating in a live simulcast event hosted by Kirk Cameron (of the 1980s TV series, Growing Pains), who also narrates/stars in the historical documentary about America's founding. He invited the viewing audience into his home where a viewing party was going on with his friends, family, the makers of the film, and some VIPs like his grandfather who'd fought at Iwo Jima, his pastor, and a relative of Martin Luther King Jr. He also had some very good music lined up.

In the film, Kirk expresses worry about the cultural decay and the political direction that is affecting the United States in the early twenty-first century, and he is worried about the country we will be leaving to our children. The movie is meant to give the viewer some hope that all is not lost yet. Cameron hopes it will spark some action. The movie suggests that there is a path that we can follow, a path, Cameron says, that worked before.

Cameron travels to Europe, Boston, Plymouth, Washington and other places, tracing America's past, and discussing America's founding with several historians who set the record straight concerning the Pilgrims (the forefathers) and the Founding Fathers of the United States.

The movie addresses the liberal talking points about America's history. What we learn in grades K-12 and in college, as well as in the mainstream media, is often colored by the viewpoint that America is inherently a bad nation, full of bad people and bad leaders. Cameron and the producers of Monumental show that along with some bad there was plenty of good in America's past. Every nation and every people have good and bad in their past. It is inescapable because every group of humans has its "bad eggs", including the oft-portrayed-as-angel Native Americans. But the ideas that started America, starting with the Pilgrims and continuing on to the Founding Fathers in 1776 were rooted in good because they were rooted in God. The very reason the Pilgrims came to America was for religious freedom. Not to persecute the Indians. They were not Conquistadors. They weren't looking for gold. The Pilgrims tried to live in peace and harmony with their Native American neighbors.

The film goes on to state that the same is true of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Twenty-seven of the signers were graduates with Christian seminary degrees. Most of them believed in God and all believed that founding a nation based on morals derived from Christianity was a good idea. Not a nation governed by a religion, but founded in partnership with its moral foundations. It was the founding documents and the foundation for justice that they provided which allowed racial and social justice to slowly but surely reign victorious.

I didn't care for some of the rough camera work by the cameraman and director at times (The bouncy, unsteady camera shots to me can be disorienting and motion sickness inducing.) but thankfully this didn't occur throughout the whole movie.

I had recently been to Plymouth Massachsetts and had seen the Mayflower 2, and the Pilgrim Museum, but unfortunately I missed out on the National Monument to the Forefathers which is the semi-focus of this movie. I wish I had seen it. It is impressive, in stature and in its conception. The monument, built in 1889, is hidden in a neighborhood near Plymouth and is an inspiring symbol of how this nation was formed. Monumental says that if we want to reform the nation, then the principles which this monument delineates will be how it must be done.

The historical documentary is a positive look at America's past and a hopeful look towards America's future. See it today, and if you can, see it with your kids so they can see America's past in a different light than is provided by the U.S. public school system.

Get more information about the film at the movie's Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/monumentalmovie/monumentalmovie.

You can buy it here:  Monumental: In Search of America's National Treasure  

Ameritopia – The Unmaking of America - A Book Review

Get a copy from Amazon.

Ameritopia – The Unmaking of America

by Mark R. Levin

Threshold Editions, Simon & Schuster

Last week saw the release of Mark Levin's new book, Ameritopia – The Unmaking of America. Mr. Levin has been marketing his book on his popular radio show for months and now that it has been released he has made his show an almost non-stop infomercial for the book. He did the same thing with his last book Liberty and Tyranny, which in my view was a better, more ground-breaking book. What has been proven by radio hosts Mr. Levin, Howard Stern, Glenn Beck and others with a book to sell is that using their microphone and their particular soap box, there is no better tool for selling books than a large radio audience. Unfortunately, Mr. Levin takes great advantage of this fact and rather than mentioning it just a few times and then moving on, his tomes become the centerpieces of his radio show for weeks.

All this said, I am a steadfast fan of Levin's radio show, but I cannot wait until he gets past being an unrepentant shill for his book.

As with his last book, Levin introduces a new term which he uses throughout the book, and ineffectively on his radio show, to describe the people who want to control our lives. Where liberal elite, radical egalitarian, elitist, and even Illuminati might be good enough terms to fill the bill, Levin repurposes mastermind, a term which is used by Napoleon Hill and his followers as a group of people serving as a larger sort of braintrust. Two heads are better than one. Levin's use of the term sort of parallels the use of the term in the sense of the evil James Bond anatgonist or of say, Osama bin Laden, but it doesn't work in the political philosophy sense in which he uses it and it is unnecessary in describing the political elite that want to control us.

While reading Ameritopia, it will be noticed that there is probably more quoted text in this book than there is original text by the author. That said, the quotes are generally enlightening and germane to the subject matter at hand.

In the first chapter of the book, Levin lays the groundwork for his thesis by saying: “Equality, as understood by the American Founders, is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain the property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law. Moreover, equality should not be confused with perfection, for man is also imperfect, making his application of equality, even in the most just society, imperfect. Otherwise, inequality is the natural state of man in the sense that each individual is born unique in all his human characteristics.” This statement about equality is one that Occupy Wall Streeters and liberals in general will disagree with.

The author suggests that in the utopian worldview, an individual is just a cog in the wheel of society. This runs counter to what America is all about and, what Levin argues every utopian society offers, that is a loss of individualism, not to mention freedom.

Speaking of labor, property, and freedom Levin says: “...the individual's right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to benefit from the fruits of his own labor. As the individual's time on Earth is finite, so, too, is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his labor—that is, the involuntary deprivation of the private property he accumulates from his intellectual and/or physical efforts—is a form of servitude and, hence, immoral.”

Throughout Ameritopia, Mr. Levin looks at utopian societies as envisioned by political philosophers of the past, starting with Plato from two thousand years ago. He finds that: “Utopianism requires power to be concentrated in a central authority with maximum latitude to transform and control.”

For example, Levin looks at Plato's Republic and de-idealizes his Ideal City. “But in the City, the individual is indentured to the state. Justice is synonymous with the well-being of the City. The classes exist to work as a harmonious collective to ensure order. Dissent, independence, and change are considered destructive. Ironically, it is unlikely Socrates would have survived long in Plato's City, given its totalitarian complexion.”

In his look at Thomas More's Utopia, published in 1516, Levin calls it “...a tyrannical society, destructive of individual sovereignty and free will, with many of the attributes of a communist state.”

The author next turns his critical eye toward Thomas Hobbe's Leviathan, written in 1651. He applies some slippery slope logic to Hobbes' utopian government, saying: “Indeed, is not an all-powerful Sovereign, which is Hobbes' answer, a great and more certain threat to the individual?” And having concluded that Hobbes' model government is sure to be despotic, Levin says, “Hobbes creates a false choice between polar opposites. Either they live in anarchy or live under despotism.” I disagree with Levin here concerning the quoted Hobbes material. He takes Hobbes Sovereign to its ultimate logical extreme, which would not always or often be the case. But Levin is correct that the civil society always needs to worry about who it invests its power in.

Levin then moves on to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' Communist Manifesto, written in 1846. Levin publishes a damning quote from the anti-humanistic treatise which those authors seem proud to expound: “In this sense the theory of Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

First of all, “Abolition of private property” is a phrase, not a sentence. But be that as it may, Levin handily evicerates the Communist utopia calling them “totalitarian regimes” where the people have no “individual liberties and rights”. I think it may be easily said that there is no single document which has resulted in more dead humans than the Communist Manifesto.

Levin then looks at some of the people who had a positive influence on the Founding Fathers. John Locke was one of those, a thinker who had a great deal of influence on the nascent country. Levin points out that Locke believed “that the wealth created and possessed by one individual does not prevent another individual from creating and possessing wealth.” This is a popular belief among conservatives in the U.S. today, and is something that is forbidden in the various utopias.

One of the thinkers that Levin reviews and talks about often on his radio show is Alexis de Tocqueville. In regards to the tyranny of government Levin mentions this: “De Tocqueville then made the profound observation that this dreary existence is accepted by the people, for they go through the motions of electing their guardians, deluding themselves that they and their fellow citizens remain free for they participate in self-government. However, as the administrative state grows, the vote is less effective and the individual is increasingly disenfranchised.”

I agree with Levin and de Tocqueville that the result of elections sometimes seems to result in little change, but voting is all we have when we want change in a representative republic. Revolution in a democracy can be as simple as voting the bums out. And as Levin often espouses on his radio show, it is imperative that if we want to effect change we must vote, not sit at home.

Mr. Levin's brief look at the liberal/statist Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt was instructive to me and I am sure will be to others as well, considering the whitewash these guys are given in the public school system. Of Wilson, Levin points out: “In short, for Wilson, rights are awarded or denied the individual as determined by the government.” And of Roosevelt Levin opines, “Roosevelt repositioned the utopians as enlightened, modern, and futuristic, and, conversely, presented the advocates of civil society and constitutionalism as obstructing individual and societal progress.”

Roosevelt's New Deal increased the scope and reach of the federal government in ways unprecedented since the ratification of the Constitution, some would say in breach of it. And in speaking of Roosevelt's “Second Bill of Rights” Levin says: “There is little space between Roosevelt's premise and the distorted historical views of Marx and Engels.” He goes on to point out how closely Roosevelt's “Second Bill of Rights” mirrors the Soviet Union's 1936 constitution.

Levin argues that America is already well on its way to being Ameritopia, the utopia that statists, liberals, and progressives want it to be. The federal government has burgeoned to an uncontrollable size. Taxing, spending and debt are irresponsible and immoral. Regulations and bureaucracy are leviathans unto themselves, intruding into every corner of our lives in spite of the Constitution, and entitlements burden and provide foundation for the growing utopia.

Levin says that the Constitution “...secures for posterity the individual's sovereignty...” Little wonder then that utopians attack the Constitution as much as they do. Levin states that it is still not too late to preserve the American republic.

Ameritopia is a cogent argument against utopianism. The reader will learn much of political philosophy. It is a fine historical essay as well. It's not an easy read by any means, especially considering all the middle English usage in the quotations, but you can grasp it if you soldier on.

But as far as fighting liberalism, progressivism, socialism, and Marxism, Liberty and Tyranny is the better book and it will have the longer lasting value.

Mark Levin's radio show can be found here.

Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny can be found here.

Mark Levin's Ameritopia can be found here.

President Obama's State of the Union Address - The Egg McMuffin of Speeches

The political stump is where you can hear the real, unadulterated words of President Obama. You hear sound bites of them every day in the news. In the speeches that he gives when traveling the country while fundraising or pushing a particular issue, the president uses Republican bashing, wealth bashing, petulant, blame-everyone-but-himself, fudge-the-numbers, fudge-the-reality language and comes across as little more than a left-wing ideologue.

And then there's last night's State of the Union address. In the televised address to both houses of Congress, President Obama came across as someone who might be willing to cross the aisle to work with the other political party. He and his speechwriters tried to sound more moderate, more reasonable, and more pliable. He spoke well of America and its flag, he spoke well of the military and their successes against bin Laden and in Afghanistan and Iraq. He spoke of liberty and tyranny (!) and of intolerance for Iran's nuclear ambitions. He also spoke almost conservatively when speaking of unfair trade and piracy from countries like China.


Appreciative and appreciated words.

But the president and his speechwriters are liberals and a liberal message can't help but pervade even this attempt at an aisle-crossing speech. He went on to say in the State of the Union address that our relationship with Israel is stronger. It is clearly not. His actions have distanced us from Israel and increased the threat against them from multiple enemies in the region. Egypt, Libya, the Palestinians, Hamas, Syria, Turkey, and Iran are all greater threats to Israel than ever. He said our ties with Europe and Asia are stronger. They are not. He said our ties with South and Central America are stronger. This is true, if the government is left-leaning, or socialist. It is not true of more democratic, or conservative states like Honduras or Colombia.

He said in his speech that our military will be stronger in the years to come, but 500 billion dollars in cuts, a smaller fighting force, and the smallest navy since 1947 counter this statement. All of this in the face of increasing threats around the world. Everything Barack Obama has done since entering office has been aimed at reducing the military's strength (not too mention increasing the size of the budget, and the debt).

In his State of the Union speech, the president (a Democrat) said that he believes what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for the people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. However, his actions for the last three years show just the opposite. He wants government doing any and every thing that people could do better for themselves.

This president once again called for immigration reform so that illegal immigrants can enjoy the benefits of American citizens and not have the worry of being deported hanging over their heads. :`-( I ask again, what kind of country do we live in where our leader wants to sanction the illegal actions of millions of people? Against the will of the majority.

The 44th president also called (yet again) for a tax increase on millionaires. Nothing new there. He and his speech writers know what works with his base, I guess.

He continued on to say that he wants to develop more energy in the U.S. from all sources of energy and even suggested opening up more public lands to drilling. This would be great if it were true, but he has turned down the Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada which would have greatly helped reduce oil imports from the Middle East and has continuously been a thorn in the sides of oil companies that want to drill in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coasts. And despite his failed backing of solar energy company, Solyndra, he wants to double down on that type of investment.

My suggestion to those who listened to President Obama's 2012 State of the Union address (hopefully his last)--Forget everything you've heard, because it's the stump speeches where the truth (and more lies) comes out to play. As Rush Limbaugh likes to say, this is nothing more than a State of the Union Show.

Get a free download of State of the Union addresses. State of the Union Address (1790-2001)


Egg McMuffin is a registered trademark of McDonalds Corporation.

The Republican Presidential Primaries - 2012

What should be clear to anyone of voting age in the United States of America is that there have been way too many debates in this election season. What is it, sixteen or seventeen by now? And the same topics come up over and over. When the eventual Republican nominee is finally chosen, he will meet in a debate just two or three times with President Obama, when the voting public should see five or ten of those debates. How wrong is that?

The debates have generally not hurt Mitt Romney, but have catapulted Newt Gingrich from a low percentage, second tier candidate to a top tier, South Carolina winning candidate. Mr. Gingrich received two standing ovations for answers in two subsequent debates which helped him seal the deal in South Carolina.

To date, Herman Cain, a great conservative candidate has been drummed out of the race due to perceived infidelity problems and a subsequent drop in funding. Michele Bachmann is out, so the only shrill badger left in the race is Rick Santorum. Jon Huntsman is out due to consistently low poll and voting numbers. And the latest dropout is Governor Rick Perry due to his poor showing in the New Hampshire Republican primary (where Democrats and Independents can vote for which Republican should run for president).

Mr. Romney had won the Iowa caucus by eight votes in the first week of January, but now that most of the votes have been certified it appears that Mr. Santorum won the Iowa caucus by thirty-something votes. What further muddies the muddy Iowa waters is that a number of counties or districts' votes will never be certified or counted, leaving the question of who actually won the Iowa caucus an answer that perhaps only God knows or cares about.

Mr. Romney went on to win the New Hampshire primary the next week by a comfortable margin over Ron Paul, Mr. Gingrich, and Mr. Santorum.

And this Saturday, Mr. Gingrich stole the show by defeating Romney in the South Carolina primary, with 40% of the vote after the aforementioned recent debate performances. Mr. Romney took 28% of the vote, Mr. Santorum took 17% of the vote, and Mr. Paul took 13%.

The sunshine state of Florida is the next battleground for the Republican hopefuls. The Republican primary there takes place on January 31. One can only hope that the topics in the coming weeks are more focused on what President Obama has done wrong with his administration and to this country, and less on Republican "vulture campaign" tactics, to paraphrase Mr. Perry.

The Wealthy Freelancer - A Book Review

Get a copy from Amazon.

The Wealthy Freelancer - 12 Secrets to a Great Income and an Enviable Lifestyle
by Steve Slaunwhite, Pete Savage, and Ed Gandia. Alpha Books, 2010

I was in Barnes and Noble - one of my favorite haunts - the other night and while browsing the shelves came across a great softcover book whose title jumped right out at me. (Actually the red Corvette on the cover jumped out as well since I have always loved that car.) The title jumped out at me because I am a freelance editor and writer, and there is nothing more appealing to me than the idea of being a wealthy one.

For those who may not know it, a freelancer is an independent contractor or self-employed individual working for various clients or companies, owing allegiance to none of them, and being responsible for all the business trappings that any small business owner must face. Being a freelancer (in any career field) can be daunting. Lack of clientele, lack of income, lack of productivity, and lack of time are just some the problems that freelance professionals may deal with. The pluses are being your own boss, not having a regular commute, no office politics, and more time with family to name a few. My favorite is control of the thermostat.

The subtitle of this particular must-have book - 12 Secrets to a Great Income and an Enviable Lifestyle - is unfortunately a little misleading. The twelve "secrets" actually refer to the twelve chapters of the book, each of which is a broad topic incuding many more secrets (tips, ideas, strategies) for getting the most out of your freelance career. Because there are dozens of great ideas in this book the publisher sort of undersold the book's value to the reader with this subtitle.

Unlike many other career books, this one gives you more than you expect - loads of steps you can take today and tomorrow to grow your freelancing business, make it more efficient, and increase your income.

Steve Slaunwhite is a marketing coach, copywriter, speaker, website creator, and the author of several books. Pete Savage is a marketing consultant, speaker, author, and coach. Ed Gandia is a marketing consultant, copywriter, speaker, author, and coach.

Each of the authors has been freelancing successfully for many years and the reader learns from them about the ups and downs, and dos and don'ts of a successful freelance career. In their engaging and informal style they also use many anecdotes and stories from other successful freelancers to support their many helpful strategies.

The authors set the stage by desribing what a wealthy freelancer is. As you can guess it's about money, but it's also about the perks and benefits of being a freelancer as well. The reader is constantly reminded to remember why he or she wanted to become a freelancer in the first place and to keep that in mind when pursuing goals and clients. They then cover getting and keeping clients, pricing your services for success (you don't want to undersell yourself with your rates), and boosting your productivity.

The authors even include an appendix which can serve as a troubleshooting guide when you run into certain inevitable freelancing obstacles.

If you're a freelance professional you will definitely find some useful secrets to apply to your business once you're done reading this enjoyable and well-constructed book.

P.S. It's cheaper on Amazon than what I paid for it at Barnes and Noble and is available in paperback and for the Kindle.

When Oppression Comes in Round

Round, Iron Manhole Cover

What brilliant civil engineer decided to place manholes and their attendent, round manhole covers in the middle of the road?

Is this ancient Rome's fault (as so many things are), or Thomas Edison's, or is there someone else whom we can blame for persisting in the use of these iron banes to a commuter's existence?

Maybe it didn't matter as much when cars were going 14 miles per hour or when horses were pulling buggies and wagons through dusty city streets, but it matters now.

As if potholes, train tracks, and buckling New Jersey asphalt isn't bad enough, the brain surgeons in charge of roads, sewage, or utilities in New Jersey (and America at large) persist in increasing the wear and tear on our cars and the crappy driving conditions by placing manholes in the middle of side streets, and highways alike.

And not only do they place them on roads where you will hit them every few hundred feet while you are going 50 or 60 miles per hour, but they seem to indent them into the road surface just for a little bit of extra fun -- or at least for maximum discomfort on people and wear to vehicles. (Perhaps this was a deal with auto makers in Detroit to shorten vehicle life.)


Manholes in all cases should be placed under the sidewalks near the street, or at least as close to the edge of the travel surface as possible. How about placing them at the shoulder of the road, whether that shoulder is dirt or paved? It doesn't seem like a difficult requirement, at least going forward. (But then again we'll all be in flying cars soon, right? So the point will be moot. Or will it? Leave it up to the civil engineers and they will find a way to add potholes to the sky.)

I don't appreciate this travel malady, this civil engineering oppression, nor have I ever done so and I think the next president of the U.S. should address the malplacement of manholes.

I think it's an issue we can all support.

A U.S. Spy Plane: The Latest Spoils of Iran's War Against the West

The Islamic Republic of Iran has committed its various acts of war on the United States of America over the last thirty years. There is the Iranian plot to blow up the Saudi ambassador in a Washington, D.C. restaurant in October of 2011; there is the IED production which led to the deaths and maiming of countless U.S. soldiers; there is the training of insurgents in Iran to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan; there is the continuous kidnapping of American citizens; there is Iran's support of terrorist organizations with direct responsibility for attacks on U.S. citizens and interests. And now, because they have somehow nabbed one of our unmanned spy planes, allegedly over their airspace, they say the U.S. has committed an act of war against them.

They are, and have been in a state of war against the U.S. and the West since 1979.

So, on December 08, 2011 Iran's government revealed that it has in its possession a top secret, United States stealth drone, known as the RQ-170. They have displayed it on Iranian TV for all the world to see. (There are anti-U.S. banners covering the landing gear. Why? Are they hiding something there?) If it is legit, they will surely try to reverse engineer it, and perhaps ask for China or Russia's help to do so, if they haven't already sold it to one of those countries. And they have laughed at and mocked President Obama for asking for it back.

Is the President worried about this? He doesn't appear to be. (Have fun in Hawaii, Barack.)

My first question is, why didn't this UAV have a self-destruct mechanism? My second question is, why don't we go get it or go destroy it so that the technology doesn't benefit our enemies?

I really hope there's more going on here than meets the eye.

Everything Is Not Steve Jobs' Fault

Steve Jobs of Apple Computer has been gone just a couple of days now and already the well-deserved kudos he's received for a life of innovation are being marred by undeserved and ugly criticism of his company's manufacturing policies in China. Steve Jobs is not responsible if people who work at his plant in China commit suicide. I am not responsible if I buy an iPhone or a MacBook. The worker who takes his own life is responsible for that decision. Despite the fact that it is a communist country, these people work in modern factories with lots of amenities, not gulags.

So now according to some it's blood diamonds, blood Levis, blood Thinkpads, and blood iPhones? Where does it stop? What is the limit of the buyer's responsibility for worker oppression? Apparently we have to crochet our own TVs and churn our own eggs. I'm not buying it. The consumer in the U.S., Uruguay, Indonesia, New Zealand, and France (and every other consumer country) isn't responsible for every worker in China and vice versa. Of course, companies should do their due diligence. And Apple has, according to some sources. But there is such a thing as personal responsibility. That is something that the Occupy Wall Street crowd doesn't appear to buy into.

The workers in China in 2011 can take responsibility upon themselves and form their own labor unions if they are unhappy with their working conditions. How arrogant and patronizing liberals are to think that the almighty U.S. can wave its omnipotent scepter of guilt and make things better for the plebes "over there". We don't have to form or export unions from the U.S. for the workers in China! They are intelligent and industrious people - ascending in the world to their own credit. And if the Chinese workers looking for the union label run into trouble with their communist Chinese government, they can overthrow it and form a democracy, or reform it to an undiluted communist one if they prefer. Revolution's not easy, but it's been done before. It's up to them to make their labor conditions better, if they are truly bad.

At the very least, the Chinese Foxconn/Apple workers should quit their unpleasant jobs and go home to their families before they consider jumping off the top of the company dormitory to their deaths.

Let's not blame Steve Jobs for all the world's injustices, nor even for this one. Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide wouldn't have jobs but for him and Apple. That is a fact. Is every human endeavor perfectly good or perfectly bad? No. Never has been; never will be. People aren't perfect. Companies aren't perfect. Political systems aren't perfect.

The Fires of Mayan Doom

The following allegory is not about Mayans, global warming, or the destruction of trees, though the second two figure prominently in the story.

It is the year 2012. The Mayans with their calendar of doom have been proven right in a way that could never have been predicted. The Earth is now facing a catastrophe unrivalled in its history, which could indeed mean not only the end of civilization, but of life on Earth.

Unseen until it was too late, and unimagined by scientists, a large, rogue, gas giant planet passing through the solar system has wreaked havoc on the planetary system at large. Dubbed “Goliath” by astronomers, just one of the devastating effects engendered by Goliath is its disturbance of the usually tranquil asteroid belt. This has caused a shower of asteroids towards the inner solar system and out towards Jupiter. Earth’s moon has so far received the brunt of this violent asteroid shower in Earth’s neighborhood, but this fortune is by no means guaranteed to continue.

However, the worst effect of Goliath’s rampage through our solar system and the real crisis for Earth is that the passing gas giant planet caused just a slight change in Earth’s trajectory through space. This slight change dragged Earth off its usual course and resulted in a new orbit for humanity’s only home.

Where Earth’s average distance from the Sun had always been 93 million miles, its new average distance to the Sun is now 145 million miles – putting us 60 percent further away from our source of life sustaining heat. This orbit is very nearly where Mars had orbited the Sun until this earlier this year. Unfortunately for Mars, but lucky for Earth, Goliath passed by Mars close enough to eject it and its moon from the solar system forever, leaving plenty of space for Earth’s new path around the Sun. Consequently, Earth’s year has also become 200 days longer.

As the news gets out to the public, many of Earth’s scientists and leaders freak out, not to mention the public. Some of these policymakers paint the worst possible outcome for Earth’s future – the extinction of all life within a few years. Still other respected scientists paint a more moderate picture – a cooler planet, but still livable, due to the moderating effects of the world’s oceans and the planet’s latent interior heat. These moderate voices say that we can expect longer, harder winters, cool summers, and no more hot tropical areas on the planet. But life can go on and humankind can adjust, as it has during climate changes in its past.

To show the panicky public that something is being done, a disaster summit is convened including presidents, prime ministers, and scientists from all nations. Bold and radical ideas are presented in an effort to deal with humanity’s imminent extinction.

This is what the president of one nation said in an address at the World Disaster Summit of 2012 at the United Nations in New York City. “We must use global warming to save mankind and all other life on the Earth. If we get enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, we can maintain the Earth’s average temperature and avoid this catastrophe.”

Another leader from a northern country, pounded his fist on the podium during his reply, “What about the pollution? My scientists say that there will be a 900 percent increase in lung cancer deaths from the increased hydrocarbon burning. And where is our oxygen for breathing going to come from? The increased burning of all these fossil fuels will use up a lot of the Earth’s oxygen as well.”

The other president responded, “Well, of course a few more people will die, but we’re talking about saving the planet here. Every struggle of humankind has involved sacrifice. As far as the oxygen goes, my scientists say that ocean vegetation produces more than enough oxygen to sustain life on the planet.”

At the month long summit, the arguments go back and forth like this, until finally, the global warmers win the day and plans are drawn up for all countries to drastically and immediately increase their carbon dioxide emissions. For the plan to work, each country is given a 30-day target to meet, and a 565-day target to meet (the length of Earth’s new orbital year).

Industrial and personal carbon emissions are to be increased. Energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulbs are banned, as are conservation, wind turbines, and solar power. More fossil fuel power plants are to be built, while nuclear power plants will be taken offline whenever possible. But according to computer models, these actions are not enough. At the Disaster Summit, it is decided that to get global warming really going, four strategically chosen countries, would each have to build (with the help of all nations) a mountain-sized bonfire within their borders. Canada, Brazil, Russia, and Congo were chosen for their distribution around the globe and for their proximity to what would be the bonfire’s main fuel source – wood.

Canada and Russia had no trouble getting their huge bonfires going. Satellite photos from space showed significant smoke and cloud formation as a result of the monster fires. At the start, the fires in Brazil and Congo are smaller than hoped for because of their wetter climates and weaker industrial capabilities.

The fires consume the trash of dozens of countries and anything else that can be burned. Ad hoc bonfires and forest fires are started in other countries as well. Recycling has ended. But the main fuel for the fires, trees, are disappearing at an incredible pace in an effort to keep Earth warm and stave off human extinction.

There are those leaders and scientists who say that we must burn all the available trees in the shortest amount of time to fend off the looming disaster. This will create the most CO2 the fastest, helping to retain more of the Earth’s invaluable heat. There are still others who say that we must be more prudent if we are to keep the fires going for a long time. “We must plant trees, and allow the trees to seed the ground naturally, replacing themselves. Done correctly,” one scientist said, “We can actually increase the number of trees on the planet and even mitigate some of the toxic effects of the fires.”

The global warmers scoff at this and argue that more trees would be counterproductive to the idea of increasing carbon output and they outlaw the idea of allowing regrowth of forests, despite the fact that the fuel that feeds their bonfires will soon be gone. “We need the carbon now. Earth needs the CO2 blanket now. We must burn all the trees as fast as we can. This is what the computer models tell us will save the planet.”

Thus, no action is taken to protect the remaining trees, except by rebellious individuals and organizations who illegally plant trees wherever they can get away with it. But the government pillage of the forests is too effective. At the pace that trees are being consumed by the fires, it is projected that they will all be gone by July 47th of 2013. UN projections, based on computer models, are that average world temperatures will be stabilized by that time.

However, despite all human activity to the contrary, the average world temperature is dropping by two degrees Celsius per extended month. No hurricanes have been generated through 2012, less tornados were spawned on the United States mainland, the aurora borealis has all but disappeared, and snow fell last week for the first time ever on the islands in the Caribbean. There have even been fewer reported earthquakes in 2012.

In the middle of 2013, when the Earth’s surface is completely denuded of trees, the fuel for continuing the greenhouse gas bonfires (and the main source for building homes) will largely be gone, perhaps forever. The Earth will never be the same. But the gamble is that the atmosphere will at that time have sufficient greenhouse gases in it and enough of a permanent cloud cover to keep the Earth warm enough to support life indefinitely.

At least that’s what the computer models say.

The Things Autocratic Capitalistic Countries Are Doing Right That the United States Is Not

I understand the thinking of President Obama and the others on the political left. I understand the logic behind the Buffett Tax. It is playground bullying times a trillion. If Timmy Turner has more marbles than the other kids on the playground and a bully takes Timmy’s extra marbles to make it fairer to everyone else, that’s the Buffett tax. That’s the death tax and the millionaire tax.

The Buffett rule, or tax, is the Obama administration’s latest nomenclature for the millionaire tax, and is named after Warren Buffett, a wealthy billionaire who is in arrears with the IRS over unpaid taxes, but who thinks people like him should pay more taxes to the U.S. treasury. Makes sense, right? The Obama administration apparently thinks that if a tax is named after a rich man, (thereby giving it the Millionaire Seal of Approval) that Americans will hop on board and agree to increasing the tax burden on all those shiftless wealthy people.

The problem with millionaire taxes (and higher taxes in general) is that they may bring in a little more revenue in the short run, but at the expense of money that would have stayed in the economy generating economic growth and job creation.

Why are citizens who make more money and who already pay more taxes than I do responsible for paying a larger share of their income to support the government? They are not.

It is class envy. It is class warfare. It is playground redistribution. It is neo-Marxism.

I paid roughly $10,000 in taxes to the federal government last year. My neighbor, Bob, made a million dollars last year and paid the federal government roughly $200,000. Twenty times what I paid. Who on Earth can say that my neighbor isn’t paying his fair share? He paid what 20 people making my salary pay in income tax! Good for him!

But that’s not good enough for Progressives, and liberal Democrats like Barack Obama. You see, they want Bob to pay $396,000 on his million dollar earnings. Thirty-nine times what I am paying! Because Bob is successful, they want him to pay what 39 average tax payers pay in taxes. And, they want to take away as many deductions from him as they can so that he has a harder time lowering his tax burden than I do.

I think Bob is paying his fair share. He is paying MORE than his fair share. He is an “engine” in the economy of the community. What would be truly fair, in the spirit of American fairness, would be a flat tax, or a Fair tax that would involve everyone paying SOMETHING to the U.S. treasury, including the 47% of Americans who now pay nothing in federal income tax. Russia has a 13% flat tax that everyone pays and that has been very successful…. Russia!

No one person should have to pay a higher percentage of his or her income than another person to the federal government. Check it: In the small island nation of Singapore, everyone is capped at $2500 of their income, no matter how high their income is. And this is an autocratic government. (However, the country does have many other taxes that the U.S. does not.)

It is fundamentally unfair in a nation that is supposed to be fair, and provide a level playing field to expect Bob to pay a higher percentage of his income to the federal government than I do. That is not fair, it is punishment for being successful. The progressive income tax (where one person pays 0%, another person pays 25% and another pays 39% of their incomes) is government theft from people who have been successful, or lucky in their lives.

Why take away the incentive for Bob to spend his extra dollars on boosting the U.S. economy by buying expensive products and services, which provide jobs, or hiring extra employees for his business?

President Obama, if you want to spur consumer spending, excite the economy, and jump start job growth, you need to cut federal spending. You also need to cut the corporate income tax (which at 40% is among the highest in the world -- even the communist-capitalist-dictatorship Red China has a lower corporate income tax). You also need to make permanent the Bush tax rates, and level the tax burden playing field so that everyone has “skin in the game.”

Perhaps Congress should pass a special tax on all people who think they and others aren’t being taxed enough. I think a 90 percent rate would be fair.

Earthquake in New York City Metropolitan Area and Beyond

Today New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and much of the eastern half of the U.S. and even Canada felt an unusually strong shaking of the earth that this region is not all that comfortable or familiar with. The earthquake's epicenter was near Mineral, Virginia and registered a 5.8 on the Richter scale. Most quakes in this region of the continent are usually much less noticeable than this one was.

I didn't time it, but the shaking seemed to go on for around thirty seconds or so. At my office, it wasn't strong enough to knock things down. But it was definitely a new experience for many of us. The quake only caused limited damage to some buildings near its epicenter in Virginia.

Office buildings in New York and New Jersey emptied themselves out as if they were all having simultaneous fire drills, including the one I work at in Parsippany, New Jersey. In our building, many of us remained inside, wanting to get back to work. But building security, showing an abundance of caution asked everyone to wait outside. After twenty or thirty minutes, we went back in. It was nice a nice break to get out in the summer sun for a little while and talk.

While this quake was disconcerting and worry inducing for parents and families, and even a little awe inspiring considering the power involved, we can be thankful that it was not worse than it was. Hopefully the involved faults have had their pressure relieved for another 50 years or so.

Obama Administration Gives Administrative Amnesty to People in the U.S. Illegally, but Not Committing Other Crimes

It's called selective enforcement of the laws of the United States of America, and it is not something the director of the Department of Homeland Security or the Executive office should be engaging in - and especially not announcing it to the world. "Oh, we won't be enforcing these particular laws, so... you're good." The people behind this outrage are sworn to uphold the laws and Constitution of the U.S. I state here and now that it's treacherous and treasonous, because it erodes the rule of law and the power of Congress and the Constitution. It is plain circumvention to support a liberal political intention. What they could not get through the legislative process last year, because it was unpopular, they have initiated by executive fiat.

Why can't the liberal numbskulls in this country get it through their heads that illegal is illegal? Why also do they insist on calling illegal aliens (or illegal immigrants) just plain immigrants, as if they had gone through the same legal process of getting into this country that legal immigrants do? Or they are often referred to as "undocumented" immigrants, as if they somehow overlooked getting a visa or passport, or as if some bad Tea Party person came along and stole these poor, downtrodden people's documents. It really is like we're in Bizarro World!

Do we want laws that enforce the borders of our country or not? If it is OK for people to come to the United States and stay at will, then change the law to reflect that idea. But as it stands now the laws make it illegal for foreign nationals (aliens, as they are called to the left's annoyance) to come into this country without asking whether they may do so. What's wrong with that? And do you know why we don't make it legal for people to cross the border at will and stay here legally? Because the vast majority of Americans want border security and additionally don't want to throw their tax dollars away supporting every down-on-their luck poor person that breaks into this country expecting to get rich. We just cannot afford it.

But this "rule change" from the Obama administration is going to make coming here illegally MORE ATTRACTIVE to people outside this country, since it is now de facto okay for them to do so. There won't be consequences for being illegal. And the burden on the taxpaying citizens of this country will increase.

On top of not pursuing the illegal immigrants, they will be allowed to apply for work permits, which will allow them to compete legally for jobs with the 30 million Americans looking for work. Good news for job hunters! Not.

My suggestion to La Raza, Robert Menendez(D) NJ, Janet Napolitano, and every other illegal alien supporter, if you don't want to break up families, then suggest they don't do something that's illegal in the first place. Don't rob a bank, don't commit tax fraud, don't commit document fraud, and don't break into a sovereign nation expecting that the citizens of that nation will look the other way.

Let's get out of Bizarro World before it becomes the New World Order.

2012 Presidential Primary Update

Things are looking good in the Republican primary race for the 2012 presidential election. After an ornery second debate on Fox News last week, Governor Tim Pawlenty has left the race and Governor Rick Perry of Texas has entered it. Pawlently placed third in the Iowa straw poll, which Michele Bachmann won by a small margin over Congressman Ron Paul.

After an errant Tweet by a staffer, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has once again reaffirmed that he is not going to enter the race, much to columnist Ann Coulter's dismay.

Governor Sarah Palin remains cagey about her plans as far as running for president in 2012. To date, she has not denied or affirmed. But to all appearances she is certainly acting as if she could jump in at any moment.

Real estate developer and reality show Don, Donald Trump is still threatening to throw his hat in for 2012, but I think he will be content with Governor Perry's candidacy and will choose to stay out. However, if Mr. Trump doesn't like the eventual primary choice, then don't rule out an independent run for president from Trump. And though he believes he would pull voters from Obama in the general election, he would also split the conservative vote. It would probably be a disaster for the Republicans and lead to Obama's reelection.

Rick Santorum and Herman Cain are both still in the race, and they are both great conservatives, but neither appears to have the traction that Bachmann, Romney, or Perry have. I believe they will be the next candidates out of the race along with Newt Gingrich. Newt would be a smart and effective president and get the country's economy turned around, but he can't get conservatives to coalesce around him, much less the independents and Democrats he'd need for the general election.

Ron Paul's ideas resonate with blue collar Republicans, and young voters like no Republican since Ronald Reagan. However, he does not appeal to the broad base of conservatives or Republicans due to his drastic foreign policy and social ideas. He will likely stay in the race as long as he can to take advantage of the extremely visible platform that his ideas have as a presidential candidate.

On the other hand, Michele Bachmann is looking strong after her Iowa straw poll win despite the mainstream media bias against her and continuous, baseless liberal attacks. She looks poised and espouses a consistent recipe for dealing with the country's economic woes, as do most of the Republican candidates.

Presidential frontrunner, Governor Mitt Romney's poll numbers took a big hit this week due to the entrance in the presidential race of Governor Rick Perry. While Romney would make a fine president who would handle the U.S.'s economic woes much better than President Obama has, Governor Romney has some negative baggage that might make Perry more attractive to voters. We'll have to wait and see what kind of negatives come out on the Texas governor in the days ahead.

Is Ralph Nader running? LOL, jk.