Audit the Gold Held at Fort Knox

Fort Knox is thought to hold over 4,000 metric tons of gold, worth approximately $300 billion or more, depending upon the price of gold, yet the gold contained and protected at Fort Knox has not been audited since 1953 and since that time many conspiracy theories, controversies, and doubt has entered into the picture as to whether or not all of the gold that is supposed to be at Fort Knox is actually held within its very secure vaults.  The American public has a right to know the truth, good or bad, and not having an audit for over sixty years, seems very suspicious as well as being not acceptable within any prudent business activity.  The necessity of having set procedures of periodic physical inventory counts is always of value to any company, to which there are few good exceptions to this rule.

The thing about not having an audit for such a long, extended period of time, especially of a commodity as intrinsically valuable as gold, to which the American government, back in 1933, forced private citizens to surrender their gold and their private ownership of such by government fiat, seems to be the height of hypocrisy or even worst.  The government should not be in the position to which they are a law onto themselves, rather than being seen for what government is supposed to be seen as, which is the servant to the people.  The people have a right to know whether all the gold that is in theory at Fort Knox is there, and subsequent questions from that audit, depend upon the answer to that vital first question.

As they say in the movies, "show me the money", and it really doesn't get any simpler than that, either the gold is there in all of its untarnished glory or it is something less than meets the eye.  Historically, precious metals have backed money, in fact, precious metals for long periods of time, were the actual real form of money, so that if most definitely makes a material difference whether Fort Knox does or does not have all the gold it is supposed to have as per its last audit of 1953.

The American government has an absolute obligation to its citizenry to conduct full and proper audits of its physical inventory periodically yet, for some unknown reason, which raises reasonable person's suspicions; they have failed to have done so in regards for the gold bullion at Fort Knox.  The American government has a duty to set the proper example for public as well as private companies in America, to which, if the American government does not believe that it needs to follow generally accepted accounting principles, particularly in regards to physical inventory and audits, than why should any other company do so or be held accountable for failing to do so.

The best way to stop a rumor is through transparency, a thorough vetting, and from full disclosure, of which none of these things have been done to timely satisfaction in regards to the gold bullion held on the behalf of the citizens of the United States of America.  It is indeed high time that our government corrects these mistakes of judgment and becomes again the appropriate watchdog that good governance is meant to be.

All Other Nations Pay Tribute to America

America is an empire, our government may not like to admit this in public, perhaps considering it to be hubris on their part, but in actuality it is true.  There are many ways to judge the richness and power of nations to which two of the most significance are wealth and military power, of which America is second to none.  While the wealth of any nation can be measured against many different matrixes so that from a Gross Domestic Product standpoint, China has edged passed America, the fact of the matter is, that China is a country with four times the amount of people in population, and therefore not only is it a country that on a per capita basis is a pale comparison to America, it is also a country, that to a large extent, relies extensively on exporting far more goods than it imports.  This means, for instance, that China exports in abundance to America real products and in return, receives paper or virtual dollars, to which , one may ask, who, at the end of day, will be laughing last?

Then too, there is the military might of America, which is known and felt throughout all countries and the entire world.  America, alone, is the only nation that has the audacity to throw its weight around in all seven seas, to which it has countless foreign rights to bases on land and ports in strategically placed nations throughout the world and pretty much writes the ticket on what it wants to do, no matter the Constitutional or religious stipulations of a given nation.  So too, can America, alone, at any time, for any reason that it so desires, wage war or what would be considered to be war, against any nation, to which there is not one nation, that could withstand its assault, should America desire to lay its full force upon them. 

The fact that the world's reserve currency is the American dollar, and the fact that America is the preeminent military power in the world, means that virtually all other nations, whether they wish to admit knowingly to this or not, must pay tribute to America on a daily basis.  America, alone or in conjunction with its allies, is not a nation or an institution that any country in this world can cross in any manner without suffering retribution for having done so.  This means that whatever rules that America demands, or whatever tribute that must be paid, by for instance, providing access to America military personnel, or for favorable trade agreements, or for the luxury of having liquid currency exchanges, or for food and water, or medical supplies, or fuel of all sorts, or education or for infrastructure, that all of this must flow through the hands of America or its designated subsidiaries. 

The upshot of World War II was that it placed an emphatic stamp on the power of America, to which, those that understood well, that a new paradigm must be recognized, such as Japan and Germany, have done remarkably well since each of their respective nations were brought to their knees by the power of the allied forces and in particular, America.   Each nation of the world recognizes implicitly that to be a friend of America, is to have life, and to be its enemy, is to be prey for the American eagle's talons. 

No matter what table that America sits at, or the ostensible power structure of such a meeting, America is the only country that really matters and what America wants it gets and those that fail to recognize this, will suffer or  be changed, or be ostracized, or compromised, or be controlled by its true master.

Volcanic Eruptions: Real Climate Change

There is plenty of media play on climate change and global warming, which has little to do with actual climate change, and a lot to do with the distribution on monies spent on energy resources throughout the world, to which those in power want to change that dynamic.  However, real climate change, the type of climate change that could kill you, set forth tsunami waves that will inundate low-lying land situated near the sea, block or distort sunlight from properly reaching the planet and thereby significantly reducing crop yields, as well as reducing visibility on land, sea, and air, in addition to lowering the overall ambient temperature for years, is not only very real, but has occurred on this planet on numerous occasions.

It is a volcanic eruption that sunk the legendary city of Atlantis, and utterly destroyed and annihilated the city of Pompeii, Italy in 79 AD.  We read that according to volcanodiscovery.com: "there are about 1500 volcanoes on land that are known to have been active, while the even larger number of submarine volcanoes is unknown."  Additionally, the world population is not only at an all-time peak but never have so many lived so close to so many volcanoes' currently classified as active. 

Planet earth is always in a state of change, most of us may not see that change, or recognize that change, but change is always happening, to which some of those changes are so imperceptible over extended periods of time, that it lulls us into a false sense of security. Yet, because volcano eruptions can occur and have occurred with very little foreknowledge, we must respect the fact that this violent release of magna, molten lava, and ash can easily bring a devastating and a long-lasting negative impact upon mankind.

You would think, therefore, from having seen the aftermath of the destruction and the devastating effect of volcanoes such as Mount Tambora in 1815, and Krakatoa in 1883, which had truly frightful consequences that those that clamor so much about their concern for climate change would want to actually put forth their efforts into more productive and meaningful areas such as "volcano control".  The fact of the matter is that it is volcanoes, more than anything else other than actual nuclear weapons that are deployed, that will have the most meaningful and devastating impact in regards to climate, land mass, population, and starvation.

The thing about volcanoes is that it is only a matter of time before an especially large and destructive volcano erupts in such a manner that it would bring forth such worldwide destruction, cataclysm and chaos, that the world as we know it, would indescribably change, and that thereby it would not be any stretch of the imagination that even the great nation of the United States, would in far future years, be looked upon as a mythical land that once may or may not have even existed.

Most of us look upon the land mass that we stand upon and believe that this pretty much represents what planet earth is, and we are suitably impressed when we learn that mankind has drilled up to 7 long miles into the earth.  The problem is, to drill to the center of the earth, if it could be done, would encompass a total of approximately 4,000 miles.  This means that most of the earth's mass is beneath the earth's crust, to which extremetech.com states: "… the core of our Earth is actually hotter than the surface of the Sun." 

The fact that there is so much heat and power beneath the earth's surface signifies that volcanic eruptions are exactly the type of thing that creates, changes, and destroys land masses as well as wrecking real global climate change.

The United States Postal Service and Amazon

Amazon is the world's biggest online retailer to which it successfully competes against traditional retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target, and others.  One fundamental difference between traditional brick and mortar retailers and Amazon is that typically if you want goods from brick and mortar retailers you are going to have to drive to their store and pick up the goods that you desire, whereas with Amazon, they will bring the goods that you want directly to your door.

Amazon wants to be all things to all people and recognizes that the one black mark against ordering items online is that people, in general, once they order the goods--want their goods in their hands almost immediately.  Because Amazon is in the customer satisfaction and retention business they do truly go out of their way to try to provide the degree of service that places a smile on their customer's faces.  Amazon uses the big boys such as Federal Express and United Parcel Service (UPS) to provide packages to customers, but also will utilize smaller outfits such as LaserShip, DHL, OnTrac, amongst others, including their own Amazon trucks.

Not too surprisingly, given the massive footprint that Amazon represents, Amazon appears to be a perfect match for the government-owned United States Parcel Service (USPS), as they already have a requirement to deliver mail to residents Monday through Saturday.  Amazon is well aware of this requirement and has increased their business with the USPS substantially over the last few years, including utilizing USPS to make Sunday deliveries.  While a Sunday delivery from a USPS truck is definitely a benefit for both Amazon as well as the customer, there is the fundamental problem that Sunday is the only day of the week that the USPS is not required to actually deliver mail and goods.

In order for the USPS to demonstrate their flexibility and to compete against other entities, they created a new type of employee, designated the City Carrier Assistant that makes a substantially lower wage than normal postal employees, which definitely makes it easier to compete against outfits such as Fed Express and UPS.  Further, to their goals of being competitive, the USPS set up a contract specifically between USPS and Amazon, that is to say, that the pricing that Amazon gets from USPS for its delivery services is not going to be the pricing that is available for the general public or any other company, instead it's a whole new deal.

The one thing that can be stated with a certainty, is that if the USPS is taking away business from companies such as Fed Express and UPS, that specifically are run in a manner in which their shareholders demand profitability and instead this business has been sacrificed over and to the USPS, it begs the question, as to how good the negotiated deal is for Amazon or the USPS.  It doesn't take a genius to understand that Amazon is very, very good at just about everything it does, whereas the USPS runs massive yearly billion dollar deficits.  This means, that there should be, a carefully done audit specifically of this contract with Amazon, to determine as to whether or not the terms of such are profitable for the USPS, and if not, to make changes accordingly.  While the USPS might be frightened that Amazon will leave them if they ask for or demand "more" or require changes in substance, the bottom line is that Amazon needs the USPS, or they wouldn’t have come a knocking in the first place.

The Conquering of America

Prior to the advent of Columbus to the Americans in 1492, the Americas were populated by people to whom we commonly refer to them as Native Americans or American Indians.  This means, of course, that when the colonization of the America mainland began, that these same people were already occupying it.  The fact that the lands in America were occupied by native peoples, was certainly no impediment to the over arching plan of the European nations that saw America as truly a new land of opportunity and riches, rife with the possibilities of vital trade, colonization, and exploitation.

Not too surprisingly, there was from the inception of the Europeans landing upon America, a general unease between these two different cultures, to which each culture, no doubt, felt it was more entitled to these lands than the other.  Additionally, the American Indians were impressed by the great ships that crossed the ocean in order to arrive in America, having absolutely no conception whatsoever, of how many more peoples and ships the Europeans had in their possession, which ultimately seemed to be unlimited.

Then too there was the important concept of dividing and conquering to which the Europeans were expert at this tactic, in which they remained united in principle, for the most part, even if there were deep divisions between European settlements, whereas American Indians were historically grouped into family-based tribes to which the friendship from one tribe to another was often fraught with some peril or bad blood between one and another.  This division between different American Indian tribes was something that Europeans were able to exploit time after time as certain tribes believed in the concept that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, a decision that contributed to the American Indian's ultimate insignificance.

Additionally, the Europeans possessed firepower and arms that were completely foreign to the American Indian, in which these arms were far more effective in killing, giving the Europeans a massive edge in battles between the two rival groups.  Also, the experience that the Europeans had in warfare was the type of experience that they were able to utilize in order to more effectively plan out and strategize their battle plans against the American Indians.

So too, it cannot be underestimated, that common diseases, that American Indians had no immunity against, such as smallpox and the measles, ended up killing and sickening an incredible number of American Indians, destroying and decimating many tribes and their peoples.

In addition, there were the endless treaties and agreements of understanding between European powers and the American Indians, to which these treaties were broken by the Europeans and their descendants time and time again, so that the Europeans pretty much got whatever they wanted, anytime that they wanted, without having to make any sort of real accommodation for the American Indians and their interests.

What the American Indian was completely unaware of was that their way of life, was under assault from virtually the first time that Europeans set foot upon their continent, to which the Europeans never honestly considered sharing this great land with these native peoples.  The choices for the American Indiana were to assimilate themselves into the conquering nation, or to be annihilated, or for perpetual banishment.

Rent to Own your Own House Scam

Housing prices plummeted in 2007 through 2009, however since that time housing has stabilized, and in many communities they are now at or above their previous highs.  Additionally, while housing prices have been on an unaccustomed roller coaster, the one thing that has consistently risen over time, and has risen far exceeding household income is the rent in which the Wall Street Journal recently demonstrated in a graphic that rental prices have increased 35.5% since 2005, whereas household income has only increased in that same period 18.1%.  The economy has been in an economic malaise over the last decade, and home ownership has plummeted from 68.9% of the population in 2005 to 63.4% in the second quarter of 2015 as reported by CNBC.

Still, the American dream of owning a home, is a dream that dies hard, so that those with questionable credit and those with questionable earning power, are certainly desiring the attainment of that dream, no matter how realistic that dream is or not.  This means, that there is a market for hucksters to take advantage of those that want to believe that somehow they can still buy their dream home, and hence that is why you will see signs and advertisements for "rent to own" properties.

Like many things that sound too good to be true, rent to own is definitely a perfect example of something that sounds like a dream come true, but is in reality, it is just a hustle, to which you the consumer, will end up in most circumstances, not only on the losing end, but having spent even more of your own money that you couldn't afford to sacrifice having been suckered.

The most basic problem that the prospective future home buyer has is that any lease or rental agreement is a written document, to which, the writer or controller of such, is the actual landlord and/or owner.  This means that the document is written in such a way that it has numerous provisions, terms and conditions, to which all of these favor the landlord and none of them favor the tenant or prospective buyer.  In a rent to own contract, there may be many odious provisions, of which all should be carefully paid attention to, but none more important than the conditions of the option to buy, as well as the actual price of the home, itself.

In most rent to own contracts, the future purchase price of the home is set ahead of time, to which, undoubtedly, the seller of such, is confident that the price of the home being sold at that particular time and that particular price, is beneficial to the owner, and not so much to the proposed buyer.  That is to say, the landlord sets the home selling price and if you as the buyer do not do your due diligence to determine whether this price is fair within that market, you are probably paying a premium to the real value of the home.  Additionally, each month, you as the rent to own buyer, have to come up with additional money beyond the actual rent, as a payment of your fee for the option of buying the home upon the conditions of the contract.  Undoubtedly, if you are late, fail to make full payments, or fail to adhere to certain under conditions, you will forfeit all of that option money paid to the landlord, and have ownership of nothing.   Additionally, if for some reason, despite making all those option payments on time you are unable to come up with the necessary means to secure a mortgage under your own name you will also forfeit your option fee, because you have failed to adhere to your contractual obligations to purchase the home by a certain fixed date.

In summary, the rent to own gig is a scam, because the chances of you, the proposed buyer, coming out ahead, are exceedingly slim, to which in reality it is heads the landlord wins, and tails the proposed buyer loses.

NCAA -- Pay the Players

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has specific rules and regulations for the treating of the compensation for student athletes which basically comes down to the fact that while scholarships are allowed, and therefore athletes can receive free tuition, room, and board, they can't actually get paid to play sports.  However, recently the NCAA has decided to permit monetary stipends to student athletes to cover the cost of typical auxiliary expenses a student would incur while living on campus.  While these stipends are a step in the right direction, the lack of direct compensation for student athletes is inherently unfair in the big ticket sports of NCAA football and basketball because the labor the students provide by virtue of their playing these sports is essentially exploited by these colleges so that they can mint the lion's share of the revenues from these sports to the colleges itself and their staffing agents.

Currently, in the NCAA, there are eighty head coaches that make a minimum of $1,000,000 a year in the sport of collegiate football and that is just the head coach, himself, which includes none of his staff, none of his overall budget, none of auxiliary expenses or benefits that are covered by the college, and so forth. Apparently, these colleges believe that these coaches and their respective staffs are worth paying well in excess of millions of dollars a year, but the players of the sport, itself, the warriors of these games, are worthy of no direct compensation, whatsoever, except for basically the granting of scholarships which are subject to revocation at any time.

It is high time that the players of the game itself, which is both immensely popular with the viewing public as well as providing a consistently high revenue stream for these colleges, that these students are able to directly share in this wealth so generated.  The compensation for the students does not necessarily have to come from the colleges, alone, and it doesn't necessarily have to be cash, itself, it can be a combination of both cash and benefits, or anything that makes sense for all parties involved. For instance, within most colleges there are certain alumnithat have demonstrated time and time again, that they are willing to step up to the plate and provide benefits for student athletes if only they are given the chance to do so.  Let them have that chance.

In actual fact, it should be mandated that there be revenue sharing between the owners -- that is the colleges and the athletes of the sport, to which the athletes should be entitled to a minimum percentage of the revenues so generated, with also a cap that is implemented on the upside.  This will therefore allow these colleges to properly budget their expenses to match their anticipated revenues and so forth, so as to give them a good idea as to how to allocate monies in regards to athletic compensation packages.

For those that believe that this will change the very nature of major collegiate sports, that somehow you are taking amateur athletes that are just playing for the love of the sport, or for the appreciation of getting a scholarship, and so forth, get over it.  NCAA football and basketball are big business sports which should not be allowed to exploit student athletes without providing these same athletes the opportunity to monetize their skills.

Jesus and His Hate Speech

In the times of Jesus, he was wrongly accused of blasphemy, a crime worthy of stoning back in Roman times, for taking the name of God in vain by stating that He and the Father were one, but blasphemy would not have considered to have been "hate speech" if such a crime existed back in the time of Jesus, because blasphemy and hate speech are not the same thing, as one is primarily directed against God, whereas hate speech is primarily directed against an individual or group based on their race, or religion, or national origin and so on.

The question then becomes, if Jesus was tried under contemporary standards of hate speech laws, would He be in violation of such?  It would seem, quite obviously, that He would be, because Jesus was never afraid to testify and speak the truth that brought forth words that were uncomfortable to certain specific people.  For instance, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus states: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!..." and proceeds to compare these scribes and Pharisees as to being blind, extortionists, the children of them that killed prophets, serpents, vipers, and that these same scribes and Pharisees were on the path that would lead them inexorably to the damnation of hell.  These words can be interpreted in no other way but as being hateful and these words were being directed specifically to a creed, a specific people, and a religious sect, to which he, the Christ, was proclaiming that these scribes and Pharisees were essentially murderers and full of deceit, in league with the devil so that the damnation of hell was to be their legacy, and that they therefore were worlds apart from being true representatives of their proclaimed faith.

Not too surprisingly, these scribes and Pharisees held these very words against Jesus, and because of this hate speech and other actions of Jesus, made it their avowed aim to bring swift justice onto Jesus for his audacity in publicly attacking them in such a manner as to belittle them as a people and to bring dishonor to their name and status in their faith and community.  These scribes and Pharisees were able to manipulate the law, the Roman authorities, and the people so that they were able to see rendered the justice that they felt that Jesus deserved for his hate and for his stirring up of trouble, all because Jesus would not be polite enough to mind his own manners, and to show respect to those that he owed tolerance and respect to.

So too did Jesus overturn the tables of the moneychangers and those that sold doves in the temple of God, and stated in Matthew 21:13 that: "… My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."  Once again, this Jesus was spewing hatred because he was calling out certain specific people as thieves, merely for utilizing their monetary skills to make a little extra profit for themselves, and further he was disrupting their business as if he had the legal authority to do so, which he did not.  That is yet another prime example of a hate speech, coupled with an actual crime, from He who behaved as if He was above the law.

Had Jesus lived in today's world, he would be guilty of hate speech, but since Christ and the Father are one (John 10:30), this would make God too an intolerant hater as defined by man.  This then is the error that comes from those that raise Hate to the apex of how justice is perceived rather than recognizing that Truth in all of its forms is the highest good of all justice.

Hotel Taxes and Fees

As a consumer, you learn over a period of time, that there are prices, and then there are prices that have added on to them extra taxes, fees, insurance, and whatnot, which often you are only vaguely aware of.  For instance, hotels typically charge whatever the prevailing sales tax rate is for that particular county but also like to add on agratuitous hospitality tax, then there are some hotels that add on a resort fee, and then there are even States, such as Georgia, that tack on a fixed hotel stay fee of $5 per night.  The problem with all of these fees and taxes is that these are almost always added onto the advertised or agreed-upon room rate, and therefore when hotels advertise that their room is $90/night or whatever, the overall price of the hotel room may be $115 or even more when the bill is actually totaled up.  It just seems since the hotel is easily aware of what the total for the room cost will be with all taxes and fees added in, that perhaps it would be more transparent and fairer to disclose the actual room total itself, upfront.

The thing with hotels is that there are two types of basic added expenses, which are broken down into hospitality taxes and hotel fees paid by the consumer.  In regards to taxes that amount is solely based on the agreed upon price of the hotel, so the cheaper the room, the cheaper the tax dollar hit will be to your wallet, whereas with fees, since that price is fixed, it doesn't matter whether you are at the Motel 6 or the Ritz, since you will have to pay the same fee, regardless, in the case of a State mandated imposed fee.  This means, in effect, that fixed hotel fees charged to the consumer are a form of taxation that is regressive, since the room price itself has nothing to do with the fee imposed.

One can make a strong argument that additional fees and hospitality taxes which are added onto hotel bills are bad business to begin with.  You would think, that most communities would want to encourage tourism by not unsettling tourists, especially not by nickel and diming them by virtue of the fact that they are spending the evening at a hotel and undoubtedly spending money throughout the day by taking in sights, shopping, and eating within the city.  Yet, that is exactly what happens to these tourists in many communities. 

I suppose that there is a general mathematical premise that some city hall genius comes up with, which believes something to the effect that if we just add on some extra fees, and also add-in some extra taxes, but don't really disclose that information upfront, that somehow the clients won't notice it until too late, and in any event, none of these taxes and fees will change their behavior, whatsoever, so that in the end we will reap free money out of them.  The thing is, they do take note of it, and it does make a material difference to them.

Dietary Fat and Being Fat

It is unfortunate that the fats that we eat which are divided into several fat categories are associated with being physically fat.  That is to say, that if you eat a lot of fat, regardless of what the fat is made up of, that by virtue of this fact, you will create bodily fat.  That simply isn't true, and the public would be far better off not associating products that are high in fat with being fat, because it is a simplistic association which is fundamentally wrong.

Dietary fats are broken down into monounsaturated fats such as olive oil, polyunsaturated fats such as corn oil, saturated fats such as whole milk, and trans-unsaturated fats such as pre-packaged snack foods.  Each of these fats has definite chemical structures and in their natural state each is different than other fats, and hence their effect upon your body is different.  In general, the only fat that is unquestionably bad for your body is the manmade trans-unsaturated fat typically made from hydrogenated vegetable oils which allow products to have much longer shelf lives and thereby prevents these food products from going rancid and thereby maintaining their form for extended periods of time.  The problem with the manmade trans-unsaturated fat is that consumption of such takes a toll on the human body creating the propensity for cardiovascular disease as well as diabetes.

It is unfortunate, that there are so many products sold to people, that are labeled as low-fat, or no-fat, or similar, which gives the wrong assumption that low-fat products are somehow better for us as well as being necessary for us in order to reduce our bodily fat.  This comes down mainly to false advertising, which tries to sell the impression that high-fat products such as nuts, fish, milk, and meat are very bad for you and will make you fat, whereas their low-fat versions are very good for you and will make you lean.

The most important thing to learn about dietary fat is that the health of the item that you are eating is dependent upon the processing of the product and the type of fat that it represents.  For the most part, processed foods in which the chemical content of the food has changed or has been "enhanced" by that processing -- are foods that are going to be questionable as to their benefits, foods such as pizza, frozen dinners, and hot dogs, are foods that may well taste good but are only acceptable to eat occasionally.  Whereas, foods such as your basic steaks, sardines, and eggs which are high in saturated fat are actually good for you.

Today's consumer is bombarded with all sorts of advertising, propaganda, misinformation, choices, and overall confusion when making decisions in regards to what they should or shouldn't eat.  It is vital that consumers learn to ignore, for the most part, the fat content or percentage listed on a given food item, and instead pay close attention to the sugar content, and whether the carbohydrates are refined, and also the overall processing of the product before reaching for a particular item and purchasing it.  For an absolute certainty, it is not the fat content of the product that you consume that will make you fat, but the sugar or sugar equivalent such as fructose that will.

Credit Cards Should Not Leave your Line of Sight

Credit card fraud is a massively big problem in the United States, to which the unauthorized usage of your credit card number costs banks millions upon millions of dollars, inconveniences the credit card holder, and may, depending upon how much attention the credit card owner pays to his bills, cost money directly out of their own pocket.  This would imply strongly that keeping control of your credit card accounts in such a manner that they are always in your possession or only utilized on websites that you trust in order to transact business should be a fundamental principle in the usage of such.  However, there is one common charge that is done each and every day, to the tune of millions of times each day throughout America, in which you voluntarily relinquish your credit card to a stranger, they will then often proceed to leave out of your field of sight, and you will have to wait often for well over a minute to get your credit card back.  That place of establishment is your typical sit down restaurant, and that procedure just cries out as the weak link in credit card security.

While there are some restaurants that will bring a portable card reading terminal to your table, and other establishments to which you must as a customer bring your bill and credit card to a central terminal in which the transaction will be performed in front of you, for the most part, in the vast majority of restaurants, your credit card will be placed in the payment folder and then will proceed in due time to disappear from your table, before eventually reappearing in front of you again.  While, one might say, no need to worry, in an era of smart phones that can snap pictures of the front and back of your credit card, and considering that if you ordered alcohol, you have already provided accurate identification to the waiter, who is trained to both memorize and to process information efficiently, you have a right to be concerned that your credit card information, is easily eligible of becoming compromised.

The thing is the waiter doesn't need to enact the fraudulent usage of your credit card himself, as he could sell it quickly online, anonymously to someone else, as this is definitely actionable information that would be of value to those specializing in this type of fraud.  What makes these particular credit cards so valuable is that these cards are known to be good cards because they have just been approved at the restaurant establishment, which signifies that micro charges against these cards to inquire as to their validity, would not actually be necessary. 

The amount of credit cards that are compromised each year is truly astonishing, and while we read about how millions of cards are compromised because of a specific data breach, too many people lose track of the fact that by virtue of simply handing over your credit card to a stranger, who then leaves with your card, can hardly be considered a prudent policy. In fact, you should feel uncomfortable and vulnerable when someone unknown to you leaves with your credit card for whatever reason, and while waiters at restaurants probably aren't any more dishonest than the rest of us, temptation is a dangerous thing, and some can't resist the lure of that easy money.

American Independence and Immigration Origin

In America, we fought for our independence from Great Britain, and in addition to this, the native tongue of America at that time, was English, to which all of this combined, creates the impression that our ancestors were either all or mainly from Great Britain, which isn't actually true.  America, from its inception was a melting pot, of American Indians, immigrants from all of the major powers in Europe, great swaths of Mexico which later became significant parts of America, and slaves taken from Africa.  

The first colonists of what we now know as the United States of America, was actually made in Florida, by the Spanish.  The Portuguese also had many settlements in the Americas but nothing in the present day USA.  The French owned a significant portion of America to which we negotiated and bought the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 which encompassed later all or part of twelve States of the union.  The greatest city in America, used to be in Dutch hands, and was known as New Amsterdam, which we now know as Manhattan.  Mexico own great areas of land in America, in our west as well as our South, to which later eight States would be carved out of areas previously controlled by Mexico.  Then, of course, there is Great Britain, to which many colonies along our eastern board were settled by English and other European colonists, to which Great Britain saw America as a land of immense opportunity, ripe with great natural resources and verdant lands that could be exploited and civilized to the greater glory and profit of Great Britain. 

From the above, It can be stated that it is no stretch of the imagination to recognize that America has been a land of many people since its inception, to which only later did this great nation become united under the banner of one God, one country, one Constitution, and one republic.  What far too many people fail to recognize is that the greatness of this country does not come from a country that turns its back on immigrants or thereby the closing of our golden door, but that America lifts proudly its lamp of freedom, to all those that yearn to have freedom, opportunity, and a chance to display their talents within our shores, irrespective of their country of origin.

Further to this point, the fight for American independence could not been successful if not for the aid and abetting by major foreign principalities, most notably France, and to a lesser extent, Spain.  These great foreign rivals to England, recognized that having an independent America would not only weaken England but would also provide economic opportunities for these respective countries, as well as helping to create a rival to England that would, they hoped, over time, take some of the roar away from the English lion.

America is a country of many immigrants, to which these immigrants came from a variety of countries, and as America expanded it took over lands that were already occupied by other cultures and people, or through the conquest of such.  Through it all we have assimilated other peoples, and other cultures, by virtue of the fact that to be a true American, means that in one's heart and in one's actions, there is a love of freedom, of independence, of religious belief, of resolve, of a government by and of the people, and of the opportunity to pursue one's happiness.

Transparency for Tax Monies Paid

In the United States, all governmental agencies are supposed to understand that they are subservient and not superior to the people.  That is to say, that this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and when citizens are compelled by law, compelled by the force of government, to provide tax dollars to the aforementioned government, than that government has an absolute obligation to disclose in detail, all pertinent information about where those tax dollars are allocated and thereby how wisely and efficiently that they are spent.

In any business, there is a requirement to provide the government with actionable taxable information, to which this is reported yearly to the appropriate government agencies, by said corporation.  This rule holds forth for not only publically held corporations but applies as well to privately held corporations or proprietary businesses in one form or another, to which all are obligated to provide the necessary information so that tax authorities can appropriately process their respective tax obligations.

In addition, citizens of the United States are obligated to submit their personal taxes each and every year to the appropriate State and Federal authorities, to which numerous tax forms for income, for dividends, for stock appreciation, are all provided by various employment or securities agencies to the government, so that an individual in many respects, is by definition, transparent with governmental authorities, from the get-go.

This means that the citizens and the businesses of the United States have done their part to provide transparency to the government; a government which in theory is there to serve them.  Therefore, it behooves all governmental agencies and departments, to provide to all of its citizens in return, audited and complete information about where and how much tax monies have been allocated and spent during each particular fiscal year. It simply isn't good enough to show generalities, because generalities do not show enough in order to form a respected opinion or analysis of the efficiency of a particular governmental entity.

All governmental entities from local to county to city to State and to Federal, should be required by law, to break down expenses and income in such a manner that these statements would meet with the expectations and requirements of General Accounting Standards.  This is a necessary requirement and the only possible way that citizens could monitor how their tax dollars are spent within the hands of our governmental servants.

The upshot is that the more that the government is able to obscure, hide, obfuscate, and distort the financial and fiscal budgets of various agencies, the less that the people will be able to judge the efficiency and effectiveness of their tax dollars at work.  For too long, governmental officials have received a free pass, with little benefit to the population as a whole, and by virtue of the terrible state of our current fiscal house, there must be fundamental changes implemented that require true and complete transparency of our tax dollars.  It is high time that the darkness and murkiness of governmental financial chicanery be exposed to the light of honest and thorough review.

The Victor Determines the War Crimes

Any system in which the victor determines the war crimes is a justice system that will not ever work, because by its very nature it is unjust.  In point of fact, all sorts of crimes are committed in war, because war is, at best, legal murder, and at worst, outright genocide.  Although wars can bring out the best in men and women in regards to their courageous acts of bravery and sacrifice, so too does war bring out the worst in people, so that under the guise of wartime conditions, and far too often under this convenient cover it is used to slaughter innocents or enact cruel punishment or both.

The one thing that the world has become in modern times is that it has gotten a lot smaller, and has thereby created a world that is truly international and global in structure to which most every country in the world interacts with many other nations all throughout the world.  For instance, there probably isn't a country in the world today that doesn't conduct some sort of business, whether charitable or not, whether desired or not, with the United States of America. 

In 1998, the United Nations did indeed establish the International Criminal Court (ICC), located in The Hague, to which this permanent global criminal tribunal was given the power to enforce prosecution efforts against those that have committed crimes against humanity, and war crimes, to which 121 countries have, to date, ratified this treaty.  The United States is one of those countries that has not ratified the treaty and appears to have no intention of ever ratifying the treaty, demonstrating its complete contempt of an international tribunal that would ever dare to even conceive that the United States could be guilty of any war crimes.

The fact of the matter is, there is just one superpower in the world, which acts and behaves as the world's global policeman, and that country spends an inordinate amount of money, materials, and men prosecuting its own version of justice throughout the world, to which, if it so desires, it deliberately targets, destroys, and kills whomever it may so select, no matter the consequences.   This country answers to no international tribunal, and so it also answers to no other country, accepts no criticism, and believes that what it does is always right, even when it clearly is in the wrong.

The United States won't be a signatory to the ICC, because it is a country that is always the victor, even in those few cases where it appears to have lost, because those don't count as an actual loss, they are instead more akin to a great eagle merely losing interest in a certain prey.  America refuses to dip its flag, because it doesn't have to, and like that spoil schoolyard bully, there doesn't appear to be a soul or country around that can make it do so.   

There are war crimes committed every day, some of those, no doubt are committed by America, but if America considers itself above the law, there will never be true international justice, and without an independent board, made up of members not beholden to any State or Government, and able to fairly prosecute all countries and its constituents, this will remain a world in which the winner judges the losers, and thereby validates justice in the manner that might is right, and civilization will be worst off for it.

The Pleasures of the Common Man

Thoreau stated: "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation," and probably this is true because man does a poor job of sharing the wealth, opportunity, concern, and neighborly affections to those that surround them.  America is a country that certainly offers the best of the best to those that can afford it, whereas for the common man they are often reduced to merely wishing or dreaming of things that in actuality they will never experience or achieve.  You could say that that is the nature of the capitalistic beast, for better or for worst, understandable, and somewhat to be expected. 

Most people are relatively resigned to way that things are, so perhaps their lives are not ones of desperation, but of simply, resignation.  However, in fairness to the common man, he should be able to lead a life where he can enjoy and appreciate the fruits of his labor, just as those that have wealth beyond his imagination, are able to do so, whether they have labored for it fairly or not.  The problem lies where there is a clear separation of the access to the pleasures in life, when it seems that the entitled and privileged segment of the population can do pretty much whatever that they want to do, whereas the other must, in a certain sick way, ask for permission to do so.

The government in recent years have taken away more and more of the freedoms of the common man, and replaced these freedoms with annoying regulations, which as bad as those are, are even worse for the fact that the government is never satiated, because they believe that what they are doing is for the natural betterment of mankind, so rather than seeing these regulations for what they really are; which is the placement of the government's boot onto the common man's neck, they see it as the government protecting the common man from decisions that they, the government, deem to be harmful or inconvenient.

The thing is for the rich man, these rules don't apply, because they have the money and resources so that these rules will never touch them.  Therefore, if the government says that you can't smoke in public housing or in your apartment, the rich man applauds this because he owns his own property and therefore the rule isn't applicable, and besides he probably doesn't smoke.  If the government says that a DUI is now .08, whereas back in the 1970s it was .15, that is fine for the elites of America, because they have alternate means of transportation, or prefer to get drunk in private, or live in an area where the police wouldn't dare to pull them over in the first place.  If the privileged believe that drinking soda pop is bad for you, they are all for eliminating or taxing its usage, while they on the other hand suck down nearly as much sugar but in the form of a Starbucks Cinnamon Dolce Latte.

There isn't any reason why a man living in America shouldn't be entitled to a few pleasures, the problem is that the government is pushing more and more in the direction of taking away the very things that makes life tolerable to those that have little.  While it might be okay to offer someone unsolicited advice, a man deserves to be able to have a smoke, drink, or whatever pleases him, for unlike the rich man who has myriad choices as to how to entertain himself, the common man has far fewer, anddeserves something better than a life of quiet desperation

The Importance of Self-Control

Each one of us is given the power of free choice and therefore has the responsibility for each of our decisions that we make each and every day. This means, in short, that we live in a world, where we are not automatons, we are not mindless machines, but each of us is given our own consciousness that allows us to be the person that we desire to be and what we become is the result of those decisions.  The choices that we make in this life, involved an incredible amount of intricacies which take into account: who we are, our parents, our environment, our friends, our peers, our social setting, and so on and so forth.  Not only do we have numerous choices to make, but so too there are boundaries, to which some boundaries are best left uncrossed, some should be carefully considered before crossing, and some boundaries must be crossed. 

It is within those boundaries, and what we do about them, that a very important aspect of our personality, of our psychological make-up, comes into play.  Just about everyone recognizes that too much of anything, can end up being a very bad thing.  For instance, too much candy, too much drink, too much food, and so forth, can take something that was pleasurable and make instead something that is painful or uncomfortable.  In order to alleviate this over-satiation of even good things, we must exercise self-discipline and self-control.  So too there are negative things that we do not like that can create great havoc for ourselves and others such as too much anger, too much angst, too much envy, and so forth, which can easily take someone that is normally an even-keel person and turn him into someone that is completely unhinged, at least for a period of time.

It is a critical component in any great soul's development to develop successful self-control.  God has gifted each one of us with a brain, a mind that we can discipline or a mind that we can let do whatever it so desires, whatever those consequences may be.  We are told by wise men that we should "think before we act", and the reason we understand the wisdom of these sage words, is because actions, most definitely have consequences, to which, although we may not know necessarily the end result from these actions, we, in general, have a pretty good idea of where those actions are taking us.   It is especially important to have self-control, because humans are absolutely capable of killing other humans, out of anger, or spite, or revenge, in literally a matter of seconds, and this happens day after day.  This lack of self-control which perhaps only encompasses a few seconds will in its consequences have lifetime repercussions.

The words that come forth from our mouth, the text messages that we send, the physical actions that we take, are all actions that will have consequences, because we live in a world with actions and reactions.  The man with great self-control will be able to maintain his discipline and his sensibility when all around him is chaos and upheaval, whereas the man without that self-control will get caught up into situations in which his decision-making process will easily become suspect. 

The great avatars of this world are masters at maintaining their equilibrium, because a mind that is disciplined is akin to a mighty river which previously had been running amok with its massive and dangerous currents before being turned into instead a great hydro-electric powerhouse that brings forth light and energy into this world.

Temperance in Cigarette Smoking

The government and established medical authorities in America have conjoined to attack tobacco smoking as the biggest and most dangerous health vice that any human being could interact with on a daily basis.  The basic attitude that these authorities  seem to have is that the very act of cigarette smoking, even one cigarette, one time, even just one puff of one cigarette at one time, or even a hint of a puff, will irreparably destroy your body and make you to suffer a long, lingering, and painful death.  While that may not be the literal words of governmental authorities, it follows the same shibboleth of if you just take a puff of marijuana, one time that you will inevitably degenerate into a chronic heroin abuser.

The fact of the matter is that there is a world of difference between a man that consumes alcohol to his own oblivion each and every night, as compared to a man who consumes a glass or two of wine at his evening meal.  So too it is true that there is a great chasm between a man who smokes like a chimney, day in and day out, and someone that smokes for pleasure occasionally, from time-to-time during a given day.  We have been told by wise men that moderation in all things is the best policy, so if alcohol commercials and its print media can get away with reminding its consumers to "drink responsibly" and thereby press the validation that drinking alcohol in moderation will not consume your body, then why does it not follow that smokers that smoke in moderation, shouldn't be extended the same courtesy.

The fact of the matter is, to determine the ill effects of smoking are a very difficult thing to determine because in order to do so, you must control a multitude of variables, in addition to the fact that all of this must be measured over an extended period of time.  This means that direct things such as the chemical makeup of a cigarette, the inhalation of the cigarette, the quantity of cigarettes smoked and so forth have a measurable impact as to how carcinogenic your cigarette smoking habit could be. 

In recent times, smoking in America has decreased, yet on the other hand, the incidence of obesity has increased substantially, as well as welcoming in the creation of an energy drink segment in America.  What is not often taken into consideration when discussing cigarette smoking is the benefits of doing so, which can range from social to comfort to just a desire to have something in one's hands or mouth to play with and puff upon.  In addition, to these obvious things, cigarette smoking is both an appetite suppressor as well as being a stimulant, which means that the authorities are fundamentally wrong when they believe that the elimination of cigarette smoking is a 100% net gain, because it is not.  It would be more honest to state that all the authorities have done is simply to have replaced one bad habit with another bad habit.

The thing about cigarette smoking is the choice should be your own, and smoking when done in moderation, probably will treat your body like most other things that are consumed in moderation.

Stoning to Death

The Old Testament indicates that  capital punishment was an appropriate punishment for certain crimes such as adultery to which we read in Leviticus 20:10: "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."  Later, in the time when Christ walked the earth, death was considered to be just for blasphemy, as we read in John 10:31-33: "Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.  Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?  The Jews answered him, saying, for a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy…."  So too we are familiar with the story of a woman accused of adultery told in John: 8, in which the scribes and Pharisees challenge the Christ to defy the law of Moses to which they stated that the law stipulated that a woman caught in adultery shall be stoned to death, but Jesus invoked a Higher law in which he said: "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."  Then later, after the rapture of the Christ, Stephen was stoned to death for his blasphemy, in which we read in Acts 7:54: "When the council members heard Stephen’s speech, they were angry and furious."  So clearly, from the time of Moses through the ministry of Jesus and beyond, stoning was a part of culture, whether it was legally sanctified by Roman authorities or not, to which some were indeed put to death on the spot, essentially by mob rule, for in essence being found guilty of or accused of adultery or blasphemy.

Because we live in a modern age, we read these Biblical stories, perhaps half believing them, half not, or perhaps we read them more as allegories which are not literally true but may bring forth an important hidden meaning, but in reality though, stoning was must definitely true during the Mosaic era and into the Christ era, and incredibly, stoning still exists as a form of capital punishment, as of today.  That is to say, there are countries that allow the stoning of death for certain crimes, that either are still on the legal books of certain countries such as in Saudi Arabia but apparently not currently enforced, then there are also countries which still practice and sanction stoning such as Iran and Somalia, and finally we have the organization of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in which stoning is practiced within territories that they control.

Those countries and ISIS that use stoning as a sanctioned form of capital punishment seem to set aside this particular punishment just for those accused of adultery and for no other crimes.  Additionally, the victims are almost all exclusively female, even though adultery, by definition, involves more than one party, and it also appears in the most of the cases that those that are stoning the victims are exclusively all male, so that what we are seeing is men sanctioned by some form of law, stoning women to death, because of their alleged adultery.  Incredibly, it has been shown, in a particular notorious ISIS video that the actual father of the adulteress is only too willing to participate and actually throws a stone against his own daughter's head in order to help aid in killing her. 

Even though the participants of stoning don't want to admit these things, stoning is essentially a form of male mob rule, in which justice is mere window dressing, for the blood lust exercised as some sort of perverse cleansing ceremony for the community, at large.  The fact that a father would stone his own daughter to death, without demonstrating mercy, forgiveness, courage, or compassion, is a reflection of the sickness of that father and of that society.

As always, the taking of life, is relatively easy, especially if done in a group to which all can say they have participated and none will own up to whether it was their stone that was the telling blow.  While I suppose that makes it easier for these misguided murderers to sleep well at night, when their final slumber comes, as it must, they may find that the mercy and justice they denied others, will be denied to them, in turn.

Overtime

America has all sorts of labor rules and laws, some of which some companies follow to the letter, and some of which some companies either take advantage of or bend the rules in such a manner as to effectively do so.  When it comes to overtime pay, the Federal law is clear that working more than 40 hours in a workweek, will entitled an employee to overtime pay at a minimum of a 50% increase in pay, and certain States have additional rules, that allow overtime payment for even exceeding eight working hours in a day, depending upon the State.

The one thing that you can expect in American labor law is various exemptions, and not too surprisingly for employees, most exemptions favor the employer over the employee.  For instance, if you are considered to be an executive, administrative, or professional employee and make over $23,660 per annum, you are not entitled to overtime pay, no matter how many hours that you work in a given week, and no matter how much of your personal time is taken up with e-mails, text messages, and phone calls, whether it's the weekend, or after regular business hours.  The only possible benefit of being a salaried employee, is because there isn't any fix amount of hours required to be worked in any given week, this entitles the employee occasionally to be able to leave work early or arrive late in order to attend to personal matters from time-to-time, or if business is slow, to curtail one's hours and still get paid the same amount of money that is currently earned on a salary basis without reprimand.  In actuality, though, most employers want the extra work hours and personal time commitments from their salaried employees,   without wanting to give back much in return.  This means, in effect, that most salaried employees work more than 40 hours in a week on average, while receiving compensation that does not take into account the extra hours worked or personal hours sacrificed for work.

There are also jobs in America that require the employee to clock in when beginning their workday and to clock out when leaving their work at the end of the day.  For these employees, it is clear that they are entitled to overtime pay, for any work over 40 hours in a given week, and  if they also received e-mail, text, or phone calls directly relating to work, when not on the clock, that too qualifies as worthy of overtime compensation.  However, most companies expect a certain amount of work to be accomplished on either a given day or a given week, and thereby subtly or not too subtly encourage, train, or turn a blind eye to some work being accomplished off of the clock, and thereby without providing corresponding compensation.   This type of work, in which you are effectively working on the company's business but off the clock, should not be permitted as a matter of course, and in actuality, is almost always, not compensated.  Not too surprisingly, many companies utilizing this off the clock policy are able to successfully implement this by effectively browbeating or making employees feel guilty for not accomplishing more when they are on the clock.

In almost every labor condition, the employer holds the upper hand, to which, unspoken but strongly implied, there is always the threat that should any employee have the audacity to question the employer's judgment on what should or shouldn't be overtime, should or shouldn't be compensation, may end up costing that employee their livelihood, whether rightly or wrongly, legal or not.

Jane Junior

There are many parents that give one of their children, typically the first child, the same name as their father, and so they are known as John Junior, and then if that tradition continues, you will see a John III and John IV and so on.  Those that are named after their father may be known by that given name throughout their life, whereas with others, via by default or by choice they are known via a nickname, or perhaps they utilize the first initial of the first name with their middle name, or even just those two initials, or perhaps just the middle name.  In any event, the commonality of sons being named after their fathers is well established in America.

On the other hand, it seems, it is truly exceptional for any daughter to be named after her mother, so that we seldom see a Jane Junior, although this does occur occasionally, perhaps at a ratio of 1:100 to males, but it does happen.  What is puzzling is if to be named after the father is good enough for the son, then the naming of a daughter after her mother, should be accorded the same courtesy.  That is to say, what is good for the goose should also be good for the gander.

In point of fact, the naming conventions of girls are always going to be a bit more problematic mainly because most females upon marriage give up their last names so that Jane Smith Junior would probably be known simply as Jane Jones, and the Junior designation would therefore be dropped.  Because of this there is now presented also the conundrum of not being able to take a female Junior and being able to successfully pass that same name down to the next generation as, for instance, Jane Smith III, although in actuality, just because the last name has changed, doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be done.

Further, you can make a very strong argument especially in today's world, in which some women despite getting married never give up their last name, or instead combined their last name with their spouse, that the time has never been better for women to follow, if so desired, naming conventions which primarily had been utilized just for the male side of the family, and use it as their own, so that there can be multiple generations of the same female first name as well as the last.

The thing is with more and more women being quite accomplished in their own right, and celebrated for their achievements -- that the naming of a female child after the matriarch of the family, seems like a reasonable thing to do for those that have an affinity for this sort of honor and tradition within a family.  It just seems, in general, that those that name their child after themselves, are in a way, testifying that their reputation and that their name is one that deserves to live on in the new incarnation of their child.  If this then is true, and the desire is also there, then it just seems logical to pass that same tradition onto the female side of the family, because they deserve the same opportunity as the males.