Home » Page 3

Stupid Stories

The day before Thanksgiving is the king of all stupid stories days.  These are the days of the year when the media decides to dominate that day’s news with completely useless information.  There are random stupid stories, such as some movie star doing something stupid.  Then there are scheduled stupid stories such as the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.  The reason this day is the king of all useless stories days is that it is the combination of three useless stories all in one day.  Call it the perfect storm of stupid stories days.

Storm 1 – Black Friday Preparation

For some reason most media outlets think that we have any interest in the misguided youths, unemployed, or otherwise confused consumers who have decided to camp out at their local Best Buy or other retailer for sales that will begin Friday.  We are supposed to be interested in people who will spend their Thanksgiving sitting on pavement outside a store for hours on end, eating their can of baked beans hoping their investment of time will pay off in a $100 reduced price of a TV.  Whenever you see these people, just remember that their vote for president counts just as much as yours.  

Storm 2 – Butterball Lady

We all know that Thanksgiving is a special holiday, and an American tradition.  Do we have to spoil it with a 5 minute advertisement for Butterball Turkey across all media outlets?  Is it possible that someone who is hosting Thanksgiving dinner is still looking for information on how to cook a Turkey the day before their house is going to be filled with people?  If this is true, thank goodness that she gives us the hotline phone number (also on the bird) for any turkey emergencies.

Storm 3 – Busy Travel Day

The day before Thanksgiving is one of the busiest travel days of the year.  This is why we get to see a top notch reporter standing at the airport.  Perhaps we are even lucky enough to hear an interview, and find out who some random person is visiting.  Scintillating! Just think how unimportant this story is.  If you are traveling or waiting for someone, you are not watching the story.  Even if you are watching at the airport just when they are about to tell you something useful, they say, “make sure to check with your airline for information”.  Isn’t that what you would have done anyway?

The issue isn’t that these things aren’t important to somebody (I guess), it is that they are not “news”.  What stories or reports are shelved to give us these gems?  If you missed these stupid stories, don’t worry you will have plenty of chances throughout the year.  There will be late gift buyer story on December 24th, or tax return wait-till-the-last-minute story on April 15th.  If this isn’t enough, I’m sure Charlie Sheen or Lindsay Lohan are planning something special for all of us.   

Here Comes the Revenge

The President has run a winning campaign, and he will be in office for another 4 years.  His method of being reelected through fear, and by pitting one group of Americans against another will be damaging to our country for years to come.  His message of how successful people are playing by a different set of rules is unprecedented by someone occupying the office he holds.  Traditionally even liberal presidents have tried to inspire the American people to achieve rather than excusing them for their failure to do so.  The President of the United States combining this excuse with the claim that the game is rigged, is not only sad but dangerous.

Mr. Obama famously told his supporters in the closing days of the campaign that “voting is the best revenge”.  If you have watched the President for 4 years, you know that he has spent much of his time singling out particular groups for attack.  His rigged game mantra currently targets Oil Companies, Banks, Drug Makers, Coal, Insurance, Private Jets, and “The Wealthy” (defined as anyone who makes more than $250,000), which are all on the revenge list.  Another 4 years will surely expand this list to include others.  The most likely new candidates would be Natural Gas, junk food companies, or perhaps anyone who makes a profit. 

Smith & Wesson stock shot up roughly 10% on the day after the election.  Many analysts think that this is because investors believe that gun sales will increase due to the concern about possible legislation to limit gun ownership.  Gun sales will increase, but it won’t be for worry that there will be gun control legislation.  It will occur due to the president’s rhetoric.  When you are at the bottom of the economic ladder, and your President tells you that people above you broke the rules, you may feel justified in “evening” things out.  It would not be a big leap for some of those at the bottom to decide not to wait for Mr. Obama’s redistribution.  They may choose to “redistribute” for themselves.  The President’s rhetoric has given tacit approval that successful people should be targets for retribution.  Those targets at the top of the economic ladder, would be foolish not to arm themselves. 

Bono (from the band U2) once observed the difference between Ireland and America.  He said, “In the United States, you look at the guy that lives in the mansion on the hill, and you think, ‘You know, one day, if I work really hard, I could live in that mansion.’  In Ireland, people look up at the guy in the mansion on the hill and go, ‘One day, I’m going to get that bastard.’”  The President’s successful campaign and reelection has it showed that distinction to no longer be true.  All we are waiting for now is him telling us how he is going to “get that bastard”. 

Relying on the Undecided

This election may be determined by undecided voters.  Even though their numbers are low, with an election this close, they can make the difference.  Some get frustrated with the fact that you can have such a stark difference in candidates, and still people can be undecided.  Often times these are voters who are just not paying attention to politics.  This has become much easier than ever before.  The American people, using common sense, usually come to the right decision.  If undecided voters choose to inform themselves, and accurate information is available, this common sense will come to the fore.

As recently as 25 years ago the opportunity to choose not to be informed, was difficult.  You had to sit through the news of the day to get to your sports, weather, or entertainment information. With today’s technology, however , it is easier than ever to remain uninformed due to the many choices that people have available.  Just as the avid news junkie can stay up to date from many sources of information, the uninterested can remain completely in the dark.  A sports fan can use their free time to watch only ESPN, listen to sports radio, go to sports internet websites, and end up more informed than any previous generation on sports.  An entertainment type can choose to watch only MTV, listen to their iPod, watch movies on their iPad, and read from celebrity websites.  This person will know more information about Justin Bieber than anyone could have dreamed to know about Marilyn Monroe in her time. 

All these selective choices permit people to be less informed on the issues of the day.  People can consciously decide not to expose themselves to information important to this presidential election.

-          Do they know that Mr. Obama’s EPA has effectively regulated new coal plants out of existence, and is coming back with a report in January that may spell similar doom to the Natural gas industry?  Do they know the effect this will have on their utility bills, and the price of everything in their life? 

-          Do they know that President Obama has no plan to sustain the future of Medicare or Medicaid, and his history has attack every challenge like this with higher taxes?

-          Do they know that economic downturns are typically followed by higher than normal economic growth?  Historically the greater the recession the greater the growth in the recovery…until this one.

-          Do they know that the President’s only plan for solving the over $1 trillion per year deficit is to raise taxes on those making over $250,000?  Even if he gets what he hopes from this, it will only solve about 10% of the problem.

-          Do they know that the full implementation of Obamacare will involve the government more in every major health decision in their life?  Do they believe that the government does anything well?

-          Do they know that most experts believe that the reelection of the President will bring us back to the same dynamics for our fiscal issues as were in place in the summer of 2011, when got a credit downgrade and nothing was resolved?

-          Do they know that the most important part of the Libya story is not the details of what happened and when, but what we weren’t told and why?

These issues might be important to consider before we reelect someone who will never have face the voters again.  Most people do take their vote seriously, and will inform themselves before deciding.  There are encouraging signs that the American people are choosing to pay attention.  The record number of people who tuned in to the debates bodes well, as well as does the relatively low number of undecided in the latest polls.  William F. Buckley once famously said, “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”  I believe in this general sentiment of trust in the basic common sense of the American people.  We can only hope that the remaining undecided voters choose to put down their “iDevice”, and inform themselves before they decide the fate of the country.

The Incumbent Rule

We will know next Tuesday evening who the next President will be.  It has been a fascinating election season.  We have been inundated with information like no other election, but there has been some analysis missing from the mainstream media.  There has been very little talk about something called the “incumbent rule”.  This is a theory that suggests that if the incumbent does not poll above 50%, particularly in the last few weeks of the campaign, they do not win.  For those who think that the mainstream media is in the tank for Obama, the lack of stories on this rule is additional confirmation of that belief.

James Carville, long time Louisiana political advisor, has said, “Incumbents get the last poll”.  In non-Cajun language, he is saying that the incumbent will receive the same percentage in the real election that he gets in the final poll.  This means that the challenger would get his poll number plus the remaining undecided voters.  There is a wonderful historical breakdown of this rule in a 2004 story by Mark Blumenthal that puts its accuracy at 86% for presidential contests (http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/10/the_incumbent_r.html).  The media is so hypocritical on this issue, and only refer to the incumbent rule when it suits their agenda.  Republican Senator Scott Brown’s (MA) is not receiving 50% in his race, and the incumbent rule is mentioned frequently in reporting on this contest.  For some reason the national media has shied away from this analysis of the presidential race.

The national polls for the last month have shown Romney consistently ahead.  The media coverage has focused on the state polls, which may be an attempt to construct a case for an Obama victory.  Even with this state focus, the incumbent rule can be used to help determine the outcome.  There has been debate about the validity of sampling for some polls, so hopefully using the last 4 polls mitigates that issue.  Based on polls released through Friday, gathered at www.realclearpolitics.com, there are 11 states that have the incumbent below 50% in at least half of the polls…

-          Electoral starting point for the other 39 states: Obama 200 – Romney 191 (this includes NV going to the incumbent, since he has reached 50% in all of the last 4 polls)

-          The incumbent has not reached 50% in any of the last 4 polls in VA, NC, or FL.

-          If these states are added to the challenger: Obama 200 – Romney 248.

-          The incumbent has not reached 50% in 3 of the last 4 polls in NH, PA, OR, MI, or OH.

-          If these states are added to the challenger: Obama 200 – Romney 313.

-          The states that show half of their final 4 polls with the incumbent above 50% are WI, IA & CO.

Even with these 25 electoral votes going to the incumbent the total count would show Obama 225 – Romney 323.  This is not a prediction of the outcome, but an analysis of the polls run through the incumbent rule.  This type of examination is almost non-existent in the main stream media countdown to the election.  Why isn’t this part of the story in the final days of this campaign?

This incumbent rule, like any other theory could be wrong.  With its track record, however, it is at least as important as some of the stories that are making headlines across the media.  No matter who wins this election, come November 7th we will still have the same news sources that we have now.  This is just another example of the media deciding, with a good dose of bias, which stories are worth reporting.  It is a shame that NBC, CBS, ABC and the New York Times are not on the ballot Tuesday, running to keep their jobs.  Their poll would definitely show them below 50%, and with the incumbent rule in effect they would likely lose their offices.

Don’t Fight for Me

For years politicians have been trying all kinds of ways to get your vote.  There is a particular method of solicitation that has always bothered me.  I am sure you have seen more than an ad or two where the carefully staged candidate says to the camera “Send me to Washington where I will fight for you!”  They typically try to look as tough or earnest as possible. These are usually democrats, but republicans will use this tactic as well.   There must be some marketing research that shows this works on people, or else we wouldn’t be subjected to it every election season.  If I actually wanted someone to fight for me, the last person I would think of is some politician.  This has always come across as sort of creepy, and not fitting of their job description.  Who are you fighting with?  Why are you fighting in the first place?

Maybe this line is supposed to brunt some of the criticism of politicians as being sort of slippery and not sticking to principles.  It’s bad enough that you have to declare allegiance to any of these politicians.  It is also a shame that they have enough power over our lives to actually be important.  It really would be ideal if they were inconsequential to your life.  The best government would be one we barely notice.  I thought they were supposed to go to D.C. to solve problems, reach across the aisle, and be bipartisan to get things done.  Isn’t that the opposite of fighting?

Perhaps this “Fight for you”, conjures up some sort of gladiator picture in the viewer’s mind.  Even if it does initially, when you look up and you don’t see anyone who resembles Russell Crowe, you have to be disappointed.  Maybe the whole advertising angle needs to be rethought.  Use this type of statement only in radio ads.  This way the voter wouldn’t have to see the wimpy guy who is supposed to be fighting for us.

Another issue with this line of campaigning is our cynicism of politicians.  They often are trusted slightly less than car salesman.  They are also very ineffective in their work, and rarely get things done to our liking.  It would be more to your advantage to find out whoever your particular politician is fighting against, and try to get that person or group on your side.  This way when your politician predictably fails, you will win.

If we can get past this sound of fingernails on the chalkboard as we hear this “fight for you” pitch my advice to politicians would be the following…Set out a series of principles, convey them to the voters, keep those principles when you go to Washington, and work with people to get things done while not abandoning those principles.  Put your swords down and get to work on making yourselves insignificant.

Get Out of Your Comfort Zone

People are often unaware of the influence they possess over friends, loved ones, or even strangers.  If you believe that there are great risks to the future of our country that hinge on this election, what are you willing to do to avoid the country making the wrong decision?  Elections come and go, and many believe that there isn’t much difference between the parties.  In some cases they are right.  In the last 40 years there has been a slow drive towards socialism with the only difference between the parties being slightly different speeds.  This election is different.  Republicans see the problems, and want to change course.  Democrats want to step on the accelerator.

If you believe that an Obama victory means a greater risk: of a debt crisis; that a dirty bomb will be detonated in NYC; that the middle east will go nuclear; you will pay higher taxes; he will find more ways to limit traditional energy production; he will do almost nothing to solve our growing debt problem…HOW CAN YOU DO NOTHING!  Do you think that the people in Greece or Spain who saw where the country was headed 10-15 years ago wish they had done more at that time to change its trajectory?  Will you feel comfortable telling your children or grandchildren what you did or didn’t do when you saw these things coming? 

The next issue of course is what you do.  If you own a business, and you believe that a 2nd term of Obama will hurt your ability to grow, don’t you have a responsibility to tell your employees what you think?  This is your honest assessment of your company’s future prospects.  The presentation to employees should not be nasty or partisan, it could be similar to estimating the impact of a natural disaster.  Statements should be in a matter-of-fact fashion, and employees will appreciate the information ahead of time.  This certainly beats a layoff announcement as a direct result of some new federal imposition on your business a year from now.    

From a personal standpoint, it can be a phone call to a family member, striking up a conversation at the Deli counter, speaking up while waiting for dance class to end, bringing up the debates at a card game, or casual conversation at a sports bar.  The people who you will be speaking to may not believe that the risks are as grave as you think, so here are some simple nonpartisan ways to get your point across.  Try…

-          He says that Medicare is the biggest cause of our long term debt problem, yet he has not suggested a fix.

-          He said that he would bring the two parties together, and work toward a “Purple America”, but he couldn’t convince one Republican to agree with him on his biggest initiatives.

-          We’ve had recessions before, why is this the only one we can’t get out of?

-          He had his chance, and things aren’t any better.

-          We’ve fired better presidents than this.

If you believe that this election will change your children’s lives for better or worse, depending on how it turns out, isn’t it worth the risk of a little social discomfort to ensure the right result?  Bob Grant has been a radio personality in the NYC market for over 40 years, and he has signed off his radio show the same way for all of those years.  “Your influence counts.  Use it!”   

Government Unions Are Different

With our various levels of government grappling with revenues falling short of expenses, there is a long overdue focus being put on the state of government labor.  The recent Chicago teachers strike should be seen as an example of the excesses of government unions.  Reporting lumps all unionization into one category, and there is no distinction expressed between private and public unions. Public sector unions are different from private unions in that they have no “Free Market” competition to keep their demands in line.  In addition, the cozy relationship between the Democratic Party and public unions create a conflict of interest for elected officials.

In the private sector there are market restraints on what a union can demand.  If UPS (union) workers demand too much in compensation as to render their company non-competitive with FedEx (non-union), they will lose business.  This puts a “real world” restraint on what these unions can demand in terms of compensation and benefits.  Corporations can go out of business, which obviously would hurt the union employees.  GM & Chrysler notwithstanding (please see previous article http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/were-we-going-to-run-out-of-cars/), this market mechanism works well.  Government has no competition, and is in effect a monopoly in terms of the services that it supplies.  Therefore, there is no similar control placed upon public sector union demands.  If government workers go on strike, where else can consumers go to get their drivers licenses?

With the lack of market forces, taxpayers must rely exclusively upon management to say no to costly demands.  The managers who are sitting on the other side of the negotiating table are elected officials.  There is a political party, however, that is beholden to the very government unions they are supposed to be negotiating with.  The Democratic Party receives an overwhelming amount of money in political donations from public sector unions.  In fact, their top 4 donors are various government unions. (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php)  Many candidates go to union sponsored events, and pledge their support for union causes.  If a candidate for office received a donation from a corporation, then after being elected, gave a lucrative no-bid contract to that corporation it would be called corruption. How is this situation any different?

Considering most government entities (other than federal) must balance their budgets every year, you would think that politicians would be restricted from offering paybacks to the unions. They can’t give what they don’t have, right?  The problem with this argument is that the official has the ability to promise, and get passed into law, retirement and health benefits that will be paid for in the future. This takes away any current budgetary restraint that may exist, and puts us in the situation we find ourselves today all across the nation.

Our country is reaching a tipping point with all of the debts we have built up, and there needs to be a sober national conversation on these problems.  Without market forces, and the taxpayer representatives beholden to the unions, what chance do we have?  Nobody wants to talk about cutting pay or benefits, but the costs have simply gotten out of hand.  The taxes that will need to be levied to support this kind of uncontrollable spending will hit all Americans.  This issue is at the core of what kind of country, and opportunities we will pass on to our children.

The Media Should be Ashamed

The presidential debate was quite one sided due to the fact that Mitt Romney was able to point out so many inconsistencies and broken promises by the President.  What was truly fascinating was how unprepared Mr. Obama was in terms of dealing with these questions.  This is further evidence that the mainstream media has never confronted the President on what he has been saying on the campaign trail.  Unchallenged false claims and unfulfilled promises never spoken of, have done a disservice to the electorate.  This has left a tremendous void that was filled by Mr. Romney in the debate, and the media should be ashamed.

Obama and his surrogates have been throwing around this claim for months about how Romney’s plan would increase taxes on the middle class by $2,000 per family.  This charge has even been repeated by the media, and there is almost no basis for divining what Romney would do to make sure his proposed tax cuts did not add to the deficit.  Mr. Romney had to repeatedly tell the President, in the debate, that he was misstating what the former Governor would do under these circumstances.  After the debate, someone said this was akin to the President saying for months that Romney planned to invade Canada.  Maybe a Pentagon reporter might have asked a question about this severe a charge…?

The President repeated a line, in the debate, that he likes to use about record drilling of oil and Natural gas under his presidency.  Mitt Romney challenged this and made the point that this expansion has taken place on private lands, which the President can’t stop.  He went on to say that the President has cut in half the number of permits that have been given to drillers during his presidency.  Maybe this fact might stir some curiosity in some DC newsroom…?

The President said that companies get a tax deduction for shipping jobs overseas, and that he would close that loophole.  Mr. Romney responded by saying that despite being in business for 25 years, he is not aware of this tax break.  In fact, he suggested that if it were true he might have to get a new accountant.  What the President might be referring to is that fact that we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world.  That is not a loophole to send jobs overseas, that’s The USA losing its competitive edge in attracting businesses.  Perhaps a cub reporter for a financial network perks up…?    

The president was challenged on his 2008 campaign promises to…

  1. Cut the deficit in half in his first term
  2. Reduce insurance premiums by $2,500 per family
  3. Keep unemployment under 8%

The likely media explanation for not confronting the President on these issues…

  1. I can’t remember that far back
  2. He didn’t want to answer
  3. I was sick that day

If these challenges were incorrect, we will be hearing the media fact-check machine kick into high gear over the next week.  If, however, this does not happen, then there has been a major lack of reporting on the issues which Mr. Romney confronted the President. 

The press has often been called the 4th branch of government, which is a reference to their importance in keeping the 3 branches honest.  The reason we had such a startling, and one sided debate for the Presidency is due to the failing of that branch.  The members of the press who have had an opportunity to challenge this president, and haven’t, should be ashamed today.  The truth is they’re probably not.

 

Let’s Get China

The current administration has recently filed a complaint with the WTO (World Trade Organization) against China for unfair trade.  This relates to its subsidies and tariffs for its auto industry.  Due to the fact that it is China, and an election year there has been much political coverage on this story.  Michigan and Ohio, which have a high concentration of auto related jobs, are key states that are important in the election.  Mr. Romney has criticized the President about how we are not holding China accountable for their government involvement in what should be a free trade competitive industry.  This issue, and who appears to be stronger on it, could determine the next President.  Due to the political story, however, there has been little analysis of the specific issues of the case. 

Some of the recent steps of unprecedented government intervention in the local auto industry are as follows.  They invested over $30 billion into their top car manufacturer in the country, taking a majority share of ownership.  A government panel was appointed to come in and restructure the company.  This government run panel fired and replaced the CEO, closed dealerships to focus more on exports, and gave them unusually lucrative tax breaks. They even violated their own longstanding laws by shortchanging investors in favor of local workers.  They basically broke every rule in the book, and then burned the book.  The government still owns more than 25% of this company, and refuses to sell its shares.

The entity that I am describing in the details above, is in fact the United States government, not China.  These are the steps taken by the Obama administration in the auto market over the last 4 years.  If we add in the cash that the government has used to “invest” in GMAC and Chrysler, the amount is actually $38 billion.  The actual complaint filed with the WTO is that the Chinese government through subsidizes and tariffs has funded their auto industry to the tune of $4 billion.  They are being accused of doing 10.5% as much as we did.  Imagine working at the WTO, and seeing this complaint come across your desk.  Do they have an “Are You Nuts!” stamp? 

Americans have a general misunderstanding of the benefits of free trade to begin with, but our President should know better.  Politically it always seems to work well to target China for unfair trade.  Mr. Romney may want to also file absurd complaints about unfair trade, but we are only allowed one foolish President at a time.  There may be some legitimate cases, but this is not one of them.  Actually he should feel lucky that every foreign country that makes cars doesn’t file a claim against us.  Maybe we can make an unfair filing complaint for China subsidizing their solar industry next.  I hope the WTO hasn’t heard of stimulus or Solyndra.

License to Conceive

You need a license to drive a car.  You need a license to sell newspapers on a street corner.  You even need a license to catch a lobster out of the ocean.  Yet any two irresponsible, opposite gender, post pubescent citizens can legally conceive a child without any means whatsoever of providing for that child.  We have third generation families in this country on welfare.  That’s grandparent, parent and child, all under one roof, collecting one or more forms of government aide.  That’s what they do.  They reach puberty, they conceive children and then they become wards of the state.  The more kids you have, the more programs you qualify for, the more freebies you get.   

If we can recognize the need to make sure a motorist knows to stop at a STOP sign, wouldn’t it be equally prudent to ensure future parents know what it means to provide for a child?  Would that be asking a lot?  Conventional wisdom would suggest they should have thought of it themselves,   but as the fourth generation of state wards is almost certainly on its way, perhaps there are some for whom this revelation will never be realized.

For those who are chock full of conventional wisdom, this is a rare and fortunate case of licensing which would never have to nuisance them.  We already know who the perpetrators are!  Start by licensing those who are already on some form of government aide.  If they want to continue to receive free money from taxpayers they must agree to temporary sterilization or mandated birth control.  It’s like already knowing which motorists have failed their driving test!

Licensing Citizens to have children isn’t some means of targeting a lower socio-economic demographic.  This isn’t an even an economic issue.  This is a livelihood issue.  All a perspective parent would have to do is prove they can feed, clothe, shelter and provide for a child.  Granted, most applicants would prove that by economic means:

“We earn income in U.S. dollars and we will use said income as currency in the marketplace to acquire all means of providing general health and well being for our child.”  Good answer!  License: APPROVED

Some applicants may prove their means by less conventional methods:

“My family has lived off the land for
generations.  We find everything we need in nature to provide for ourselves and our children.  It is the very foundation of our culture.”  Good answer!  License: APPROVED

Some applicants, however, will give answers which prove the need for licensing:

“This is exciting for us.  We really want to have this child.  We’d like the American taxpayer to provide that for us.”  Bad answer!  License: DENIED

“Children are a miracle.  They are a blessing from the lord.  God will provide.”  Bad Answer!  License: DENIED

Later on, as we become more civilized and refined we can ask really tough, unheard of questions like, “What are you going to do if you lose your job the day after your child is born?”  Baby steps for now, though.  Let’s not ask too much of those who are responsible for the nurturing, livelihood, and welfare of a human being. 

While licensing could relieve financial burden as soon as nine months after it’s implemented, its long term benefits could be even greater.  We have a chance here to potentially wipe out the better portion of our next generation of criminals before they’re even born.  Most of the criminal element in our society comes from homes and neighborhoods which are receiving government aide.  This is the same element of society who would be denied licenses and never have a chance to conceive future criminals.  We must be patient with realizing this benefit of licensing.  It will take roughly 12 to 13 years for crime prevention benefits to kick in, since that is the age when criminals emerge and start victimizing society.

There are no unplanned pregnancies.  There are no pregnancies which are just random acts of god.  Knowledge of procreation is not some revelation that sneaks up on everyone.  It’s the exact same thing that fish do.  Are there people out there who are going to try to claim they don’t know how conception occurs?  Are these the same folks who would then be applying for licenses so they could parent children?  Even worse, is there anyone who would actually mind that we put a stamp of approval on parents to ensure a child is properly provided for?  If there are, I have a stamp for them: DENIED!

Hidden Secret Revealed A simple strategy to trade stocks is uncovered!