The sun is setting on solar power, the money’s gone and nobody’s asking any questions.


If you keep an eye on the financial world, which I do, and especially the green sectors, which I also do, it’s been an interesting time of late. Within the last few weeks, Solar Trust of America (STA), owner of the world’s largest solar plant, filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11, and nobody expects much of it, if anything, to emerge from it. STA joins a long list of companies in the solar energy sector, who’ve gone bankrupt, ducked into protection from their creditors, suspended production indefinitely or are simply circling the plughole.

Across the world, a few of the more prominent and expensive casualties are Solyndra, Solar Millennium AG, Energy Conversion Devices Inc, Q-Cells, Solon, Solar Millenium, Solarhybrid, Ener1, Range Fuels, Beacon Power Corp and there’s a whole lot of others. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s probably not a good idea to invest your hard-earned pennies in any company with “solar” in its…

View original post 1,815 more words


The Only Thing You’ll Ever Need to Know about Socialism

When I think about socialism in America, I think about the white-tailed deer. To liberals, socialism is Bambi in all his furry cuteness – don’t you just want to give him a squeeze? They just can’t get enough! To conservatives, socialism is a four-legged pain in the ass, rarely around when you want it to be, but totally eager to jump in front of your headlights at 70 mph – ultimately leading to a bloody, hairy collision with your heavily-taxed vehicle. Before I go into detail, I want to show you the only thing you’ll ever need to know about socialism.


The truth about socialism is that it can occur in various quantities and qualities depending on the economic system of the nation in question, and the successes and failures of specific socialist programs implemented ultimately determine how much a society is going to desire more or less of them. It is important, however, to remember that much like any government program, socialized programs must be restrained and not allowed to reach unsustainable levels. This is the problem facing America today.Route1A-Ellsworth-JCR.jpg

In the image shown above, I’ve cleverly graphed the relationship between three different topics: Amount of Socialism, Amount of Capitalism, and Quality of Life (read: Amount of SUCK). You see, we acknowledge that some socialist programs are completely
Which ones? I’m looking at you police officers, first responders, landfill workers, and guys holding the SLOW sign. Without those guys, let me tell you, life would SUCK. Notice how the curve SUCKS MORE when you go all the way to the left? The same thing holds true for the right. With too much socialism in our economy, life will SUCK. Where do we want to be? We want to be in that socialism ditch in the middle – not too little and not too much. We want to minimize suckage.

The police, first responders, highway workers, etc. are completely necessary to sustaining our way of life, and no one disputes that fact. But look, Bernie, that doesn’t mean that we need more and more and more of it. What are some examples of “bad” socialism? Well sOADSFJ;LKJ… oops… sorry. The elephant in my room is named Obamacare and just stepped on my foot. He and his friends named the Department of Education and Internal Revenue Service are on their way to a Irish wake for Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.

Recently, some friends of mine who consider themselves far more intelligent than they are told me that the federal Department of Education was producing “stellar” results. The only explanation I have for such an ass-backwards belief is that they must’ve been educated in federally-controlled public schools (BAZINGA!). Want to see if we’re getting the “bang” for our buck? Check THIS out:


Don’t worry, if that isn’t enough, try this one too.


Hmmm… So, we pumped more money, more money, and more money for four decades and didn’t see any measurable benefit? That sure looks like a recipe for success! What did it give us, though? Well, a few things.

For instance: the inability to focus curriculum on what inspires students to learn. Why? Because on the federal level, everything is rated relative to your peers. If a low-income district in Detroit has students of a certain demographic that struggle in one regard, but a suburban school in Texas doesn’t have the same problem, then surely the problem is the school itself and not a more complex result of the composition of the student body, right? Anyone in education knows you cannot have the same expectations for all children’s behavior, so why are we doing it on a federal level with their academic expectations? What if instead of having the same required curriculum standards, students in Detroit who are inspired by its automobile industry and students in Texas inspired by agriculture could focus more of their time learning about those types of topics? Which is more important, having students kind of know a little bit of everything or having students become passionate for learning? By putting the accountability  for education back on the states and localities, they are better-equipped to handle the behavioral and intellectual development of children and can cater their methods to the needs of their students.

Here’s another example: Teachers not being allowed to give students a failing grade. Why? Well, a few reasons:

  1. Federal funding is so horribly allocated that there isn’t enough space in classrooms for children to be held back.
  2. Schools’ levels of success are measured by their ability to produce graduates. If the students can’t pass the tests, the easy solution is to lower the passing grades, right?

George, take it from here.

Since we’re talking about education, let’s talk about Bernie Sanders. Ol’ Bernie wants college in the United States to be tuition-free. Well, he did when he was running for president. I imagine today he’s just enjoying his new lake house (I heard they’re having a housewarming party/Irish wake with a few elephants of mine). Nonetheless, that frazzled old man inspired an entire generation of Americans to believe that they should get a free degree, and now we have to deal with it.

I’ve already shown the issues associated with having federally-mandated education programs, so I won’t revisit those, but let’s just talk about something on an empirical level. If the federal government subsidizes college tuition, it will control what it bought. What do I mean by that? College today is a beacon of what grade school should be: freedom. It’s free learning. No restrictions on which books can be purchased, which subjects can be taught, or which opinions can be shared. When the government buys higher education, it purchases the right to decide what is going to be taught.

Furthermore, more students are going to college than there are jobs existing for those students. In the words of Mike Rowe, “We’re lending money that we don’t have to kids who will never be able to pay it back to train them for jobs that don’t exist.” If the definition of insanity is repeating the same process expecting different results, then exploding our cost of education by billions of dollars only to see our job market become more unstable is certifiable lunacy.

Not only does Bernie think that piling on billions of dollars in wasted degrees is a good idea, he suggests that the alternative is PRISON. Bernie, I believe that while we disagree on your policies, you are a good man; however, you are so misled, and your message, despite its intentions, is so toxic, you have caused great harm to the youth of America. There are 3,000,000 jobs available right now in the United States and no one wants them. Why? Because they’ve been convinced by people like you that unless you have a degree, you’ve accepted a consolation prize in life. 90% of that 3 million requires no degree, only skill and the willingness to work hard. Congratulations, Bernie. Now put on your dunce cap and let Mike teach you a thing or two.

Supporting free healthcare and free education is a lot like getting in a van that has “FREE CANDY” written on the side. It might sound good from the outside, but you’re probably not going to like it once those doors slam shut.

See you guys next week, and I promise to deliver on that environmental hysteria post that I said was coming this week!


Hate Crimes, or Just Haters?

Part I: The “Viral” Virus

Part II: Thank you, sir. May I have another?

Part III: Hate Crimes, or Just Haters?

Happy Thursday, folks! I’m back from vacation and back to posting. Because my previous two posts on racial tension got so much attention (nearly 2,000 people have been reached in the last 4 days alone), I decided to proceed forward with Part III into my dig on racial bias and its associated violence.

For review, let’s start off with a reasonable assumption from the perspective of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Assumption: Police are systemically racist against the African-American community. Young black men are being hunted down in the streets every day.

Now, let’s couple that assumption to a fact:

Fact: The police are 73% white.

With these two statements, we should be able to draw the reasonable conclusion that white-on-black racism is both systemic and on the rise, right? After all, is that not one of the BLM undertones? If most cops are white and cops are hunting black men in the streets, by translation one could assume the position that white men are hunting black men in the streets and using the badge to do it. If that’s the case, then we should see increases in all racially-biased crimes against the black community.

Let’s take a look at hate crimes by racial bias and the race of the criminal offender.

Hate Crime by Year
Hate Crime Statistics by Race and Year (Source: FBI)

As you can see in the graph above, overall, race-related hate crimes have been on the decline for several years. Between 2010 and 2014, hate crimes dropped by a total of 18%, but who was responsible for the drop? If we operate under the narrative described by Black Lives Matter, then surely the percentage of anti-black hate crimes didn’t have anything to do with it, did it?

Of course it did. From 2010 to 2014, anti-black hate crimes dropped by over 26%, accounting for the vast majority of improvement in race-related hate crimes. What about anti-white hate crimes? They have not decreased, at all. In fact, anti-white hate crimes are on the rise. The reason for this? Well, it’s anyone’s guess, but in this polemicist’s opinion, it has everything to do with the fact that black poverty in the United States has increased from 25% to nearly 28% under President Barack Obama. Increased poverty is directly correlated to decreased employment, and as the Good Book says in Proverbs 16:27, “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop.”

But what about homicides specifically, not just crimes considered to be caused by racism?

Black Homicide Statistics (Source: FBI)
white homicide
White Homicide Statistics (Source: FBI)

Let’s break down the data shown above and compare the two graphs.

  • From 2010 to 2014, 2,600  and 3,100 black and white people, respectively, died of homicide.
  • The good news? During that time period, total homicides for both white and black people decreased. The bad news? While there is a slight decrease in the count of black homicides by a white offender (218 in 2010 versus 187 in 2014), there is absolutely no decrease at all in the count of white homicides by a black offender (447 in 2010 versus 446 in 2014).

This means that the notion of young black being being systematically hunted in the streets is completely false. As a matter of fact, the rate of white-on-black homicide has been half of the rate of black-on-white homicide the entire time. Take a look:

  • From 2010 to 2014, white people were responsible for an average of 7.5% of all black homicides.
  • During the exact same time period, black people were responsible for an average of 14.0% of all white homicides.

Black Lives Matter supporters, I hope you see this. Your movement is fueled by hatred and lies, and as long as the violence and riots continue, people like Korryn Gaines will continue to die for the most unfortunate crime of them all – being grossly misinformed.

Folks, this woman never deserved to die. I implore each of you to share information (especially the things you read here) and engage in positive dialogue with one another.

My final thoughts: Remember what I said last time? 

If the Democrats can keep black voters just satisfied enough to go out to the polls and just poor enough to remain loyal to the Democratic party, then they will have an iron-clad voter base for the indefinite future.

Never forget, the Democrats own the liberal media. The liberal media is feeding the Black Lives Matter frenzy, and we’re in an election year. This is not a coincidence. Black Lives Matter supporters, you are being herded like cattle for your votes. There’s a reason why black-on-white racism occurs at a much higher rate than white-on-black racism – and part of it all has to do with the information we’re receiving.

Until next time,


Next week: We’re going to venture into the environmental realm for our next post. We do not want this blog to be interpreted as solely about race, and after 3 posts about it, our minds need a break! Keep sending us your comments and suggestions, and like us and share on Facebook!

Part I: The “Viral” Virus

Part II: Thank you, sir. May I have another?

Part III: Hate Crimes, or Just Haters?