Ford's Recent Pullback A Hiccup

WILL I SELL MY FORD SHARES NOW THAT ITS STOCK HAS RECENTLY TUMBLED? The simple answer is no. Absolutely not. Yes, they reported less in earnings in 2017 than they expected, and yes, they lowered their guidance for 2018, which sort of signals for any investor that the stock is going to enjoy another year of basically sideways trading.

A TRADING PATTERN THAT HAS PLAGUED THIS COMPANY FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

But all of the fundamental factors remain solid for Ford, and therefore I can see no reason to be a seller of the stock. There is going to come a time when investors finally get it, and when that day comes the stock will make a tailwind comeback that will be very profitable for anyone who has taken advantage of the long term sideways trend, and even the recent short term pullback in share value.

Plus, when you consider that the company is still turning a profit, and is making very good inroads in continuing to improve its brand image, and trades at roughly just 11 times earnings, I think the shares are not necessarily cheap. But they are trading at what I think is a discount to the real value of the stock.

AND SO THAT CONTINUES TO LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT FORD STOCK IS STILL A BUY AT THESE LEVELS.

At the end of the day when it comes to stocks, and your decision to buy, you really need to look at the balance sheets and dig deep into the earnings reports they provide, and listen carefully to what the CEOs of these companies see as the future of the company. Everything from Ford indicates that they are very forward thinking, and I think that's a good thing. And sometimes you have to read between the lines a little bit when investors react to certain announcements.

If Apple reports 100,000 less iPhones sell than expected the stock tanks even though they may have still sold a bucket ton of iPhones. And sometimes a company reports stellar news, like IBM reporting breaking a 23-quarter streak of declining revenue only to see its shares drop by 4%.

Investors don't always get it. Not the insider ones at least. But if you know what your stock's real value is, it matters little in the short term how investors react to its performance. You just have to plug along on Main Street and keep adding shares until the day comes—and it usually does eventually—that Wall Street catches up to the reality.

Ford stock will be no different. Besides, until we are otherwise told, it still also yields a hefty 6% dividend while you wait.

Democrats Have Me Pissed!

IT JUST GETS A BIT OLD AND TIRED. Three northeastern democrat states have decided to get together to file a lawsuit over what they say is an unfair tax overhaul that could cost their taxpayers billions of dollars. The real truth is that the only reason these states will have a negative impact unlike other states is directly due to democrat lead economic and tax policy in their states. In a nutshell, what the truth is, is that democrat leaders in these high tax states essentially took advantage of the former tax code and used it to rape their taxpayers out of billions upon billions of dollars essentially because the old tax laws technically subsidized those taxes at the federal level—at the expense of everybody else in the Union.

Once again the democrats are making every last effort to put the blame in someone else's corner. The republican party. But anyone paying attention knows all too well where any blame should rightly lie. On the democrat party.

For years many state governments, mostly lead by republicans, have been working diligently to overhaul their own state tax laws to right their own economies, and encourage economic growth on their own despite stagnant growth and tax burdens on their taxpayers that were a direct result of failed economic policy during the Obama administration. And many of them succeeded. On the other side of the aisle, the democrats held course and raised taxes, burdened corporations with ridiculous regulations, and allowed the exodus of jobs while relying on the federal government to essentially bail them out of messes they created by design.

The gravy train these democrat states enjoyed has now derailed and they're mad as hell about it.

But what gets under my skin more than the lawsuit is simply that once again democrats are engaged in doing everything BUT the work of the American people, and it is time they are held accountable for that. It is this constant defiance of the Trump presidency and everything he is working to fix, which is CLEARLY WORKING that just rubs me in so many wrong ways it almost makes me want to pound my fist.

But I am a conservative. I am more level headed than that. I know this is what the democrats do, and I know it will never change. But I do want to see this country get back on track again. I want this country and its leaders to be able to see what is clearly different about the direction of the economy, to go back to the history books and see what is possible with lower taxes that happened under both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, and to acknowledge that what we are doing now in terms of deregulation and tax reform can only strengthen the economy, and is the only way we really give back to the taxpayers.

All this sort of thing does is distract from the real work that needs to be done. And it is another clear example of a completely divided two party system that simply is NOT working for the American people's interests anymore.

I still believe in my heart that there is a reason why Donald Trump won in the first place. Because he is not Washington. He is not a politician. He is actually extremely smart and he knows what works when it comes to money. He knows how money changes hands best, and he knows who benefits when the wheels of the economy are well oiled and turning smoothly. And therefore he knows as well what holds that all back—and he is fighting tooth and nail to make sure it works!

I believe the vast majority of the American people know this as well. What's more, even if they do not fully grasp it at this very moment, as jobs flourish, as manufacturing comes back, and as they see more opportunity for their own prosperity, and have a sense that their own lives are indeed prospering, all of the antics of the left will simply fall on deaf ears.

That is my silver lining. But damn am I frustrated. How is it possible these kooks on the left cannot see the obvious? The truth is they can see it. They do know it works. They are hopeful their lie is made into truth in the eyes of the rest of us—

Because that is the very source of their power. 

They will lose the lawsuit if it even gets seen by the courts. And history will prove once again that booming economies come from conservative economic and tax policy, and higher taxes hurt everyone—and even when the tax law changes in the high tax states, the effect of those high taxes hurts even more.

What the democrats should be focused on instead of suing someone is going back to their own tax policies and trying to figure out how to put working policy into their own tax codes. Honestly, I'd probably fall over if they actually did the work.

Timing For Amazon Prime Rate Increases Suspect

I AM NOT CHASTISING JEFF BEZOS OF AMAZON FOR RECENTLY ANNOUNCING HE WILL RAISE MONTHLY AMAZON PRIME RATES—ALTHOUGH HE WILL KEEP THE ANNUAL AMOUNT AT $99—but I do think that the timing of making such a decision may be a bit...well, off. The thing is not just that Amazon is nearly a trillion dollar market cap company, nor that Jeff Bezos recently took the lead in becoming not only the richest man in the world, but the richest man in history.

For me the decision is simply a bit confusing considering that at the same time we have the Trump tax cuts which will no doubt provide a significant boost to Amazon's bottom line, if you look at all of the numbers for the company...

AMAZON IS NOT EXACTLY HURTING FOR MONEY.

Amazon will be raising both its monthly prime rates from $10.99 to $12.99 and student prime rates from $5.49 to $6.49. That's an 18% increase for anyone who wanted to know, which I also think is quite a substantial increase.

Back in 2014 Amazon did also significantly increase its annual prime membership from $79 to $99 a year.

While Amazon cannot be denied anything at all for its benefit to American workers seeking jobs, and ones mind you that don't pay all that poorly either, and they also recently announced they have narrowed down their options for a second headquarters which will provide upwards of 50,000 new jobs, they also have not announced any worker bonuses after the tax cuts became law, nor have they mentioned increasing anyone's wages.

It should be mentioned that Jeff Bezos is also unusually non-philanthropic when compared to other billionaires on a percentage basis. Although he did recently announce offering $33 million to Dreamers for college—a bit of a controversial move no doubt.

But it begs a question for me when you put both that donation for the Dreamers into view along with his decision to raise prime rates and not offer bonuses or wage increases.

IS THIS JEFF BEZOS' WAY OF STICKING IT BACK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP?

Because we all know that there is a bit of a rivalry between the two, and we all know that invariably there is no love from Jeff Bezos for Donald Trump.

Or is this just another example of the real greed so many supposed "right wing rich" get accused of—but on the left, not the right, which by the way is usually how it actually goes. The greediest rich are often on the left, folks. And the rich on the left also tend to be far less philanthropic than the rich on the right.

SO BEZOS FITS PERFECTLY WITHIN THAT COMMON FRAMEWORK.

At the end of the day I do not think it is a big deal, nor do I think that current or new monthly prime members will think it is either. I own shares in Amazon and I have no intention of letting go of them any time soon. As a shareholder price increases are typically welcome since they help to boost bottom lines, and that of course helps to boost share value.

I only point out that I think the decision is a bit strange in its timing, and am very curious to know what the real basis for the decision was in the boardroom . We will never truly know of course. All we can do is speculate, and watch what happens next. Probably nothing. But it is interesting nonetheless. 

The News Will Claim American Express As An Example of Trump Failure

THE MEDIA HAS BEEN NEARLY ALL BUT SILENT IN REPORTING THOSE MULTITUDES OF COMPANIES WHO HAVE REPORTED EMPLOYEE BONUSES AND WAGE INCREASES DUE TO THE TRUMP TAX CUTS. But you can bet there is one story that will make their news all day, and probably for a week or more, and that's American Express announcing that due to a $2.6 billion increased charge in taxes due to the Trump tax cuts, they will be suspending their share buyback program.

I say this even though in the eyes of liberals those share buybacks are just for the greedy shareholders anyway—that's not why they'll hit this one full force.

It's a negative story in their eyes, and they'll want to point this out as the leading example that they are right and the GOP is wrong that the tax cuts will benefit anyone. Even though STILL American Express has also said that they feel the tax cuts are a benefit in the long term, good for the company, and good for America.

The news media will assuredly leave that part out, or not highlight it nearly as much. It's what they always do.

Just another reason to make sure that when you are following any news source, it is not the only news source. And you also have to make sure to cut through the smoke to get to the real truth of the matter. Why is American Express incurring the extra charges? In a nutshell it is related to how they were dealing with accounting under the old tax laws—and as a result their capital ratios changed.

What else will not be reported? Invariably and assuredly the fact that they will also be making incremental contributions to their employee profit sharing plans to adjust for the differences. In other words...

American Express is eating the expense and NOT putting the burden on the backs of the people who work for them.

There is really nothing at all negative about this story at all. No one is getting hurt. Not really. But I bet you the news will not tell you that. I'd be willing to wager a bet in fact. Just watch, wait, and see. It'll be all they can talk about and point to when they get their panels gathered to talk about the evil corporations and the "Armageddon" Nancy Pelosi warned us about.

Trump Is NOT An Idiot!

IN NO WAY IS MY INTENT TO BE COMBATIVE HERE, FOLKS. But as I troll around the Internet in the usual places like Twitter and Facebook, there is just the annoying assertion by a good number of people, and on both sides of the aisle (with the bulk of it of course pouring in mostly from the left and the lamestream media) that somehow President Donald J. Trump is an idiot.

This, folks, cannot be farther from the truth.

Look, I have said multiple times that I do wish our president would tone down his Twitter antics a bit. But I have also said that the person Donald Trump is today is the same Donald Trump he was before he became President of the United States.

The thing here that needs to be pointed out, that gets sorely missed by many making this assertion, are the multitude of accomplishments this president has achieved and to point out that what he has done in his first year in office is actually rather historical. If you think it's just the economy he has done well with, you're just not paying close enough attention to what's actually happening in our government, and with this current administration.

He's an idiot? He's not a leader? Really? What planet are you living on?

Now, don't get mad at me for being so blunt here. Just read on and hear me out. Because I think it is important for you to be more than aware of why I think that President Trump is not only not an idiot, but is also a strong leader. Because the truth is that there is more than enough that is positive that's happening in the White House, and unless you are tuned into Fox News, you aren't going to hear the half of it.

• Border crossings are down 70% since Donald Trump took office.
  
• MS-13 gangs are under heavy fire from the Justice Department.
• Deportations of illegal aliens is on the rice, and law enforcement officials in ICE and Border Patrol have been strengthened.

Even if we don't have good immigration reform right now, the fact is that more is being done than has been done in many, many years and across many past administrations to simply enforce existing laws on the books. This should make throngs of American citizens, including legal immigrants, very happy. This means less crime, less drugs entering the country, less burden on the American taxpayer for welfare and other benefits some illegals receive, and more jobs available for legal citizens across the country.

• ISIS has been seriously depleted in their numbers.
• Citizens of Iran are making an uprising in their country with the full support of the administration, and sanctions are WORKING.
• North Korea is quieting down at least a LITTLE BIT, and have even reached out to South Korea in a way they have not before. I think Kim Jong Un is getting the message it might be better not to mess with the U.S. Something they would not have considered in the past administration.

The truth is we have actually seen some stability forming in the Middle East. When you reduce the power of ISIS and build coalitions with other Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel, it puts more pressure on the bad actors in that region to reconsider what they are doing, and it also empowers the people to push back harder against bad regimes and terrorist groups who make want only to maintain unrest and make the average citizen's lives miserable.

I am not going to say that North Korea having a small part in the Olympics is any sign that Rocket Man still does not have a strong desire to lob missiles and strut his "might" wherever he can. But it is a start. It is also something I am not certain we would have seen had Hillary Clinton won the election.

Now you might have noticed I have said nothing at all so far about the economy. Why? Because it is the obvious accomplishment—even if even that is seriously under reported by the lamestream media. But clearly you have historic lows in both Hispanic and black unemployment, more and more jobs being created, repatriation of overseas money, bonuses and wage increases, and of course an exploding stock market.

And everything I have mentioned herein is just a small slice of what he's accomplished. The bottom line is that if you think that Trump is an idiot or not a leader, you may want to consider your own intelligence and perhaps schedule a psychiatric exam rather quickly. Your mental health may be in jeopardy.

20 Year Old Mega Millions Winner

WHEN I READ ABOUT SHANE MISSLER, THE FLORIDA MAN WHO WON THE MOST REECENT MEGA MILLIONS JACKPOT, THE THING THAT STRUCK ME WAS HOW OLD HE IS.

He's just 20 years old! He chose to take the lump sum which amounted to about $282 million. 

But there you have it. You just never know who is going to win or where, and it matters little how long they have been playing, and in the case of many lottery winners, whether they play at all until they hit the big one.

How many times have you heard a winner say, "I never played before, but something told me to buy a ticket this time."

UGH. I HAVE BEEN PLAYING FOR YEARS AND HALF THE TIME I AM LUCKY IF I EVEN GET MY WAGER BACK!

Still, and I know it's as cliché as clichés come, somebody has to win. As I am a realist by nature, just based on the odds, I am practical in my thinking that perhaps no matter how often I play, or where I buy my tickets—I will probably never see a jackpot.

It's funny little mind games you play sometimes too. For example, I travel into several other states for my job. And so I can buy tickets in Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Kansas quite often. Sometimes I think to myself, "Wow, this kind of increases my odds." In fact, about a year ago or so I had to travel to Fort Wayne, Indiana on business, and the jackpot of whichever multi-state lottery was kind of up there, and one of the town I passed through and did buy a ticket wound up being where the thing was won...

ONE WEEK AFTER I HAD BEEN THERE.

Granted, the store where the ticket was bought was also a different store, so while it was close, in reality it really wasn't. But in my mind? There was the chance.

I am happy for Shane Missler. From what he has said he is doing to manage the money, and what he wants to do with the money, maybe he will come out as one of the ones who didn't squander it all away in short time. That is always the tragedy of big lottery wins—sometimes the winners lose it all.

Either way, both the PowerBall and the Mega Millions have essentially reset. I will still play. I can't help myself. And hopefully one day I can be posting about my own big win. Only time will tell. 

Convenience And Luxury: Know the Difference

LET'S GET ONE THING STRAIGHT. LUXURY AND CONVENIENCE ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Whatever do I mean? Look, there are so many people I know who confuse these two things, and it costs them an enormous amount of money.

You decide to go out and do some shopping for the day. You leave the house and somewhere in the process of shopping you decide you are thirsty. You stop at the local gas station and buy a bottle of Coke to satiate your thirst..

IS THIS LUXURY OR CONVENIENCE?

You might argue that you make enough money, and that you have enough money, and due to that fact alone, being able to buy that bottle of Coke while your out shopping is part of the luxury of having a supportive income.

But it is NOT a luxury. It is a convenience.

LET'S PUT THIS ANOTHER WAY. You go on a road trip and you know you are going to want to buy some bottled water somewhere along the way. You leave the house with 24 bottles of water in the refrigerator, but take none with you on the trip. You stop to fill up for gas and buy a bottle of water.

Is this luxury or convenience? IT IS CONVENIENCE.

Why is it convenience? In part because you decided to leave behind perfectly good and already bought and paid for water to avoid having to take it along. It is convenient that in the event you want that water despite that, someone will have it readily available.

In a way you could equate the logic to going on a vacation out of town. Do you opt to pack clothes you already have for the trip? Or do you opt to just buy those clothes as you need them while on the trip?

Let's put this yet ANOTHER way.

You get home from work and you simply do not feel like cooking dinner. You decide either to order out or go out to a restaurant. It's not that you do not have food available to cook in the cupboard or freezer. And it's not like you don't have the time or the ability to cook dinner. You just don't feel like it. This is a convenience.

So when is it a luxury if you decide to eat out or order in? When you decide to treat yourself to something special.

The long and short of it all is that when you start to break things down, the more you opt for convenience, the less you will be able to afford for luxury. Convenience costs the most even if luxuries are expensive since luxuries are partaken of, theoretically, less often than conveniences.

Drink cheap coffee Monday through Friday, and you may find you will have no problem treating yourself to something special on Saturday and Sunday. And because you have played your money right doing so, affording the luxury of doing so will not cost you as much.

I scrimp on the less important things so I can better afford the more important things.

What makes things worse for a good many people is they opt for both convenience and luxury. And at the end of the day when they look at their bank account what they find is...

THEY DON'T HAVE ANY REAL MONEY...

And more often than not, they have debt which they have created as a result, and a lack of savings to speak of. It's really a conundrum. But one that, when  you know what the difference is, is entirely avoidable...

And who wants to splurge on an easy bottle of Coke when you can do so much more if you didn't?

From Shitholes to DACA

THE DEMOCRATS WILL OBVIOUSLY STOP AT NOTHING TO TRY TO DENIGRATE AND DENOUNCE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. And the latest accusation made against President Donald Trump that, in talks over DACA, referred to some foreign nations as shitholes is just another glaring example of this.

Whether or not the statement was actually made, to my mind, is not necessarily the issue. Granted, it is a bit of a poor statement to make. But, if you are thinking of it in more realistic terms, is it really that far from the truth?

The people of these countries, if the statement was made, is not what the president probably was referring to in any event. If the statement was made, it was more of a direct statement against the governments of these countries which defile their populace, and place their lives into chaos such that they potentially become less than desirable in their attitudes, and potentially even their impact in other communities in which they may become a part...

SUCH AS THE UNITED STATES IF THEY COME HERE.

Is it really racist to make such a statement? I don't think so. It merely points out the obvious in more ways than one. And what about the situation in, for example, Muslim countries. Are these people products of their environments? Their upbringing? Their religious and government leaders?

YES.

And so their attitudes toward life, liberty, economic status, societal contribution and any number of other things is influenced by the attitudes of their leaders, and the conditions in which they live in their own countries. If we make a statement about this it is not a racist statement. It is a simple observation of what are largely verifiable facts.

Democrat senator Dick Durbin of Illinois made remarks that he couldn't believe such racist and vile remarks had ever come from the Oval Office at any time in America's past history. But the reality is that there have been well documented reports of rather racist remarks made by even Lyndon B. Johnson. And certainly there had to have been rather colorful language even in the early days of the Office of the President, such as before the Civil War—granted, those were different times and this is now 2018.

But one can imagine what may have been more than a few comments during the Civil Rights Movement.

NONETHELESS, UNIMPORTANT.

The real reason the dems are launching, yet again, attacks against the president is because—and people should FINALLY be getting around to understanding this—trying to paint a narrative that the president is racist, vulgar, unfit, and even mentally unstable. None of which are particularly true. They so badly want this to be the reality that they will go to every length to make it seem apparent.

DO I APPRECIATE IT IF THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY SAID THIS? Like I said before I think if he did, it was a very poor choice of words, even if I believe the underlying point of that statement would have some truth to it. Do I think it ultimately matters if he said it?

Look, if we weren't concerned over the content of the emails between Clinton and her cohorts which were actually downright mean, and if we weren't concerned with the events of Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, or four dead Americans in Benghazi, and all of the events leading up to those events which actually harmed people, I think the entire narrative trying to be forced down our throats about this are made moot.

The president is working with highly combative and uncooperative democrats who have no other desire but to discredit and disparage the president at every opportunity. In the DACA talks I would be absolutely shocked to learn that dems were not engaged, in some form or fashion, in making every effort to lead the president into a snare just so that they could come back afterwards and make a public stink about the effect without reporting the cause.

What's more, perhaps even if the statement was not made in the manner in which it has been implied, the question is still a good one. Yes. Exactly. If they, the democrats, are so determined and adamant that these people deserve to be here and stay here, tell us why. Drop the rhetoric and touchy-feely garbage and actually come up with a compelling reason in favor of their argument that we should have a different thought about the program, the people, and the benefits or lack thereof of the whole thing.

Really, at some point the democrats need to just move on, get back to the work of the American people as the president is trying to do—and quite frankly just grow the fuck up. Their temper tantrum has gone on long enough and it is getting more than a little old—and quite frankly is terribly distracting.

Something, however, tells me that the democratic party, still not able to fully comprehend their dramatic loss in 2016, is incapable of being the adult in the room.

Jack-In-The-Box Goes to Pot

YOU HAD TO KNOW IT WOULD EVENTUALLY COME. That is, someone was going to eventually capitalize, or aim to capitalize, on the growing legalization of pot. Currently three states allow recreational marijuana use; Colorado, Washington, and California.

I SUSPECT THERE WILL BE MORE TO FOLLOW.

Enter Jack-In-The-Box who will now enter the busting out of the seams pot industry, albeit on the back-end. Starting in mid-January the fast food chain will try out it's Jack's Munchie Meals at certain locations in the Long Beach, California market.

My suspicion is that most other fast food companies are already getting a boost from hungry pot heads looking for something to fulfill their munchie cravings—although none of them to date have actually tried to directly reach out with a menu catering to them.

So, what's in the munchie meal? Supposedly a couple of tacos, some chicken strips, five mini churros, onion rings, fries, and a drink.

That actually sounds like a nice little snack for anyone. But to go one step further with the whole thing, Jack-In-The-Box will also price it's munchie meal at just $4.20, capitalizing on what is apparently a code term, 420, that pot heads use for marijuana consumption.

As for whether or not this will boost sales for the fast food giant is up for debate. Even with growing acceptance of pot consumption by the general public, one wonders what customers may opt out of eating at Jack-In-The-Box simply fearing that they might be surrounded by a bunch of high customers—and who knows what antics that might entail.

Then again, if you ever frequent a Denny's at 3 o'clock in the morning, it can be a rather entertaining meal in and of itself...

Provided you aren't the source of entertainment.

You may be all right though in the end. One wonders if there may not be a few police officers eating there, or hanging out there to see who might be getting a munchie meal. The consumption of pot may well be legal in the state, even if it is still illegal at the federal level, but one thing that is definitely illegal is driving under the influence of something.

If you get that munchie meal to go, you might want to consider having a driver along who hasn't toked.

Still Long Ford Motor Company

THE TRUTH IS, I HAVE OWNED FORD STOCK OFF AND ON FOR SO MANY YEARS I HAVE LOST COUNT. But each time I have reached a point to get out, I am usually very well invested in the company. That simply means I am a "constant buyer" of Ford Motor Company stock. And currently where I hold those shares, I also have my dividends reinvested, and anyone who has spent any time in the markets surely understands and appreciates the power of compounding.

I won't bore you with the details of how compounding works, or the benefits of it. But you can surely look it up if you want to know what it is, and how it works FOR your investment.

I have to admit for at least the past two years I have questioned my position in Ford. I mean, the whole point to owning shares of any company is to make money, right. Not just in terms of those compounded dividends mind you. But you want to see gains as well on the underlying shares themselves.

But anyone watching Ford Motor Company stock over at least the past year knows all too well that at best, the stock has performed rather sideways. And, in my humble opinion, Ford stock has actually UNDERPERFORMED. For whatever reason it has just had difficulty getting a good footing in the stock market, and was extremely underlooked.

BUT, in many ways that also presents a bit of an opportunity. Why? Simply put, to some extent simply because the stock has been so neglected by investors, it seems apparent (and the math seems to suggest it) that based on the actual performance of the company itself, the stock has actually been—and for a terribly long time—UNDERBOUGHT.

That just simply means that if you are indeed buying shares during this period, you are getting shares at a relatively good price compared to what the real underlying value of the shares happens to be. They're just not trading there because either no one is paying attention, or no one cares.

Okay, there has been STILL some lingering trepidation from the whole bailout thing of days past that befell the auto industry in America. BUT, YOU WILL REMEMBER FORD MOTOR COMPANY NEVER GOT BAILED OUT unlike ALL others in the U.S. auto business.

GM, on the other hand, did in fact take the money offered to them in the bailout, but as far as stock performance goes they really never did suffer the same woes Ford has ever since. But that's for another day.

So why I am still long Ford even after considering selling my shares several times over the past three or four months?

I just KNOW what the stock is worth, and I tend to think that eventually so will the rest of the market. The fact is that Ford is still very low on the debt side, they have cash to spend, and they are still largely benefiting from the Mullaly days, AND from the downsizing they did, along with the renegotiations they conducted with the unions and so on and so forth.

But what was it that sealed it for me today to decide to continue to be long Ford for at least a while longer?

It was just recently announced that Ford remains the #1 seller of pickup trucks in America. The F-150 is simply, according to the buyers, the best truck on the road and the sales prove this year over year over year DESPITE THE JOKES. No truck outperforms a Ford truck. Simple as that. Otherwise, someone else in the pickup truck portion of the market would be fast on their heels. It's simply not the case, and so jokes be damned, Ford trucks are #1. Still.

But did you also know that for FOUR YEARS IN A ROW Ford is also the leader in auto sales among U.S. carmakers? It's true. They have the lead four years running. Granted, they may not have the best selling car in America. But for the past four years they have outsold in total volume the other U.S. car manufacturers.

That's not really a small deal, folks.

What's more, they have been in an ongoing effort to make their luxury line of Lincoln cars more of an experience, and they have been succeeding in doing that. Moreover, the styling of Lincoln cars is vastly improving. Although I do feel they still have some work to do here to overtake Cadillac, BMW, Mercedes, and let's not forget that MANY higher luxury lines have begun to make more strides in the marketplace to get their cars into the hands of more buyers who otherwise might not have been able to afford them.

Aston Martin for example. Certainly Mazerati and Jaguar have been doing this. Jaguar, by the way, used to be owned by Ford.

And the stock has had a recent amping up of share price. So FINALLY, after quite a long time the shares are starting to show some signs of life. Granted, that can be short lived as has been proven in the past when shares ran up to nearly $18 a share and then dropped significantly back down into the $9-$12 territory and stayed there.

But here's something else that strikes me. That's the recent passing of the new Trump tax law. Look, NO ONE else in the U.S. auto industry is better poised to take advantage of the tax breaks, and since they already have the best selling truck in America, and are the best selling U.S. car maker in America, with more and more Americans who will invariably have more money in their pockets to spend on cars, OF COURSE FORD MOTOR COMPANY IS GOING TO BE A STRONG BENEFICIARY OF THIS.

Bottom line is that I don't think Ford is out of the woods. Nor is their stock for that matter. This is a short term boost to their share price and I am not going to get ahead of myself thinking, "This is it. Now we go to the moon." But do I think Ford stock is headed for a newfound happy place? I do, and in full disclosure I am long Ford AND I intend to buy more shares within the next week.

I will be watching my Ford Motor Company stock very closely. But right now, based on what I know behind the scenes (all the math I won't bore you with), I see ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO SELL FORD MOTOR COMPANY shares right now. In fact, I'd BUY MORE.

Okay, okay...for those who want NUMBERS! I know you are out there. By 2nd quarter 2018 I see Ford's shares being traded for just under $16 per share. So for those who AREN'T privy to the quarters, that means that I predict Ford shares will be trading at just under $16 per share by the time my 45th birthday rolls around.

THAT'S JUNE 1ST FOLKS, AND I DO TAKE PAYPAL IF ANYONE WANTS TO SEND ME A PRESENT. 

Fear not. You can use some of your proceeds from Ford's rising valuation to send me a gift.

"I'm Drunk And I'm Driving."

If you heard someone telling you a story like this you'd probably think, "My God. That's a really tall tale." That is, a man spends his whole day drinking, and even somewhere along the line decided to swallow some methamphetamine as well, gets in his car drunk as a skunk, and then...

Wait for it...

Calls 911 to report himself drunk driving. Yes my friends, you have it right. Truth is stranger than fiction.

Florida resident Michael Lester did exactly this on New Year's Eve, calling into 911 to report that he was drunk driving. When the operator asked him for his location he basically stated he had no idea. He was too drunk to know. 

Not that he was really out to look after public safety from himself and his poor decision making. It appears that the man has a rather long rap sheet which includes previous DUI offenses, along with other crimes like hit and run, drugs, and battery. In fact, he actually at one point during the call told the 911 operator that he was driving around trying to get pulled over, even driving on the wrong side of the road several times.

Either way, he was off the street at least for the night, and it made for a pretty good story to boot. The cops who arrested him and the 911 operator who took the call will be telling this one for years to come at many a gathering.

A New Fox News?

PERHAPS THERE DOES INDEED NEED TO BE A "NEW" FOX NEWS IN THE NEWS MARKET. I thought I would never have said it, since Fox News has been a long-running, and quite frankly refreshing addition—in my opinion—the the news media. Especially when you consider that reporting has gone out the window, and most other "news" networks have become nothing more than the LIBERAL RAGS that their paper counterparts have become.

Think Washington Post, the New York Times, and of course there are local fare I am personally familiar with like the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

I will grant you that it has been more difficult to watch Fox News for me since the departure of Bill 

O'Reilly. But Hannity remains, and he is a force to be sure. I'll be honest with you, I had my reservations at first about Tucker Carlson, but lately I tend to think he's holding his own and doing actually what I consider to be A DAMN GOOD JOB.

Fox & Friends is, of course, still standing as the #1 rated morning show in America, and that happens to be a good thing.

Thank you to Steve Doocy, Ainsley Earhardt, and Brian Kilmeade for keeping it real. 'Nuff said!

But here's the thing. Unless you have been parked under a rock somewhere, there HAS been talk that Disney is in talks to BUY FOX NEWS. Now, when you think of Disney what is the first liberal thought that comes to mind.

ESPN.

Now, you mean to tell me with a straight face that if Disney does in fact buy Fox News that somehow the ideology of Disney, and what they've turned ESPN into won't trickle into Fox news reporting, programming, and the CULTURE of people they'll put on the air?

I say this despite the obvious FAILURE of other liberal networks like MSNBC, CNN, and ESPN notwithstanding and my sense of business that why would you want to take a highly successful business model and highly profitable network into the realm of low ratings and low profits and falling viewership?

Well, it MAY WELL sound like a bit of conspiracy theory...but if they can silence the conservative voice of Fox News, they can make the other liberal networks more "relevant."

Arrive on scene Peter Thiel, a strong supporter of President Trump, and a co-founder of the PayPal empire. Not only does he feel that there is market for it, but all suggestions seem to indicate he also feels there is a need for it even if he has not come right out and said so.

Reportedly, Peter Thiel is looking into launching his own conservative network to compete with, and perhaps to rival behemoth Fox News.

What makes the whole thing more real? We have now learned that Thiel had some concerns earlier on, and was actually beginning to talk to former Fox guy, and now dead, Roger Ailes about the possibility, and even was suggesting they could pull over guys like O'Reilly and Hannity to the new network. Based on the "conversations," and the planned meeting that was to occur to occur just before Ailes died at 77, there is some indication that Ailes may have even been slated to head the thing.

What makes the whole story more interesting recently are the revelations about Steve Bannon, and the Mercers, who FUNDED Breitbart, and who are also supporters of Trump, who have now broken financial ties with Bannon based on his recent association with Michael Wolff who is publishing a Trump disparaging book with Bannon practically at the helm of it all. The Mercers are tied to Thiel.

Either way, I do have some serious concerns about Disney taking over Fox, and if they do, I think it may be just the right time to launch something to at least serve as a secondary source. But if Fox falls victim to liberalism as so many networks have under control of what is obviously a liberal company...

We can't get a new, conservative network up and running fast enough.

Massive Money In Online Ad Fraud

A FEW DAYS AGO I wrote about the annoying trend of websites who force you to click from page to page to page just to get through to the end of the article, and about all of those ads that load on each page...

AND THE JUMPITY, SCROLLY THING in the programming of the website that seems to want to force an accidental click of one of those ads.

You can read that commentary here if you wish to.

Because those websites invariably get paid for any of those clicks. Part of my suggestion was that advertisers must be going beserk because of all of these shenanigans since ideally they are paying for advertising, and CLICKS because what they are hoping for are ACTUAL BUYERS OF THEIR GOODS AND SERVICES.

Makes sense, right? Why else would you want to pay someone to share your wares unless you SHARE THEIR DOUGH.

wanted those who are being shared the wares to have some interest in what they are sharing, and

When I wrote the commentary I had completely forgotten about another aspect of the Internet. Click bots. Even better than causing an accidental click, why not just let a bot do the work for you? And that's what a ton of websites apparently happen to be doing.

Again, the question of why is a no-brainer. THEY ARE MAKING A TON OF MONEY DOING IT.

But did you know that there is actually a number placed on HOW MUCH MONEY is actually lost by marketers from online ad fraud caused by these actions? There actually is a number, and the amount might surprise you. It certainly surprised me!

DRUM ROLL PLEASE!

A marketing services company, WPP, did some study on this issue and found that the amount of money wasted on online fraud globally is somewhere around $16.4 billion. 

HW MUCH MONEY DOES $16.4 BILLION ADD UP TO? I thought I would do a fun little comparison since sometimes when you put a number into words, even with the word billion attached to end of it, it doesn't slam you in the gut quite as hard as if you put it into some kind of a comparison.

Stated well enough, at the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, with $16.4 billion you could employ 1,087,533 workers for a year full time. Yep. Put into words that's a staggering 1.08 million workers.

Is the practice illegal? That I don't know for sure. I would assume that it may well be. But let's not forget one detail about the Internet that lets so many people get away with so much using it for nefarious purposes.

It is harder to track people, easier to mask locations, and a lot of this activity is even done overseas—sometimes even in third world countries where even if you knew who these people were, the likelihood you would catch up to them and put them into handcuffs is highly unlikely.

In SOME instances it is even suggested that rogue governments like North Korea may even be involved in these sorts of activities. Where there is money to be had, you can bet a lot of people are going to try to get away with whatever they can.

Biden Can Win 'Overwhelmingly' Against Trump in 2020?

OKAY, SO OLD UNCLE JOE IS A LIKEABLE GUY. Albeit, based on a number of pictures that have made their course across the Internet, he's also a bit of a creepy old guy. In other words, as horrible as it may sound, keep him away from the kids and the damsels in general.

But, the question is can he win the presidency?

According to ex-DNC chair Ed Rendell, he seems to think so. In his words, "Biden is just the guy the country is looking for."

WHILE I APPLAUD ED RENDELL on his analysis, and while I do also believe that BIDEN WOULD HAVE LIKELY BEEN A MUCH BETTER CHOICE THAN HILARY CLINTON AS THE FRONT RUNNER FOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY in the last election, and MAY have even given Trump less of an edge, the fact remains that despite what the polls suggest, President Trump is still highly popular after one year into his presidency.

Add in the fact that despite what the lamestream news media will tell you, things are actually getting done, and Biden loses handily in 2020. 

And let's face it folks. The news is only going to get better. The fact is that you cannot argue with something very fundamental in the hearts and minds of the American people, and most importantly the AMERICAN VOTER. 

That's their pocketbooks and wallets if you want to know.

FOR ONE THING, THE NEW TAX LAW WILL BEGIN TO SHOW IT'S IMPACT AS EARLY AS FEBRUARY. That is, that's when the withholding tables are changed to reflect the recently passed new republican tax law. People are going to see a boost in their bottom lines come February, and if you think that won't be noticeable you are living on another planet.

Along with that, nobody can deny that so many economic standards are in territories that have not been seen for at least a decade, and I'd argue not in two of them, people HAVE TO ALREADY BE TAKING NOTICE THAT THE ECONOMY IS IN A MUCH BETTER PLACE THAN IT EVER WAS DURING THE OBAMA TERMS.

GDP is up, Hispanic unemployment is at historical lows, and so is the black unemployment rate. Consumer confidence is up. Jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector are making a bit of a comeback, and there are now more incentives than there have been in a very long time not only for American manufacturers to keep their shops open, but ADD OR REINTRODUCE SHOPS, and for some foreign companies, to LOCATE shops here.

Foxconn, which will be breaking ground in the near future in Wisconsin that will employ better than 13,000 people making over $50,000 a year on average, is a prime example of what's to come. They have never operated in the United States before. So this is quite an amazing development to say the least.

AND REALLY FOLKS, THAT'S JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBURG. The fact is that there are going to be many more stories like that now that the corporate tax rate has been lowered to much favorable rates. Add in the reduction in costs for things like transporting those goods across oceans and you have a recipe well poised for success. And believe me, JOBS will follow, and Americans WILL take notice of the increased availability of not just jobs. But good ones that support families in terms of wages.

Furthermore then, what does Joe Biden have to run on? How is he going to support what will be the ever more clear failed economic policies of an administration he was part of, downplay what will be ever more clear SUCCESSFUL POLICIES in economic terms under Trump, and position himself as a strong contender better suited for the White House?

UNLESS SOMETHING DRAMATICALLY BAD HAPPENS BETWEEN NOW AND 2020, I think the only rightful conclusion for Joe Biden's viability in 2020, and for Ed Rendell's analysis is wishful thinking.

But it also highlights a continuing disconnect, in my opinion, of the democrat party from reality. They are still unable to acknowledge the real reasons Clinton lost, and they continue to disregard what are real accomplishments and achievements of the Trump administration. They are really disillusioned. They are living in a fantasy world.

Look. Do I think Biden would make a bad president? I'm not saying that. But I AM saying that I think what we are going to see after the first four years is said and done with Trump in the White House is a highly successful presidency with undeniable and provable results that even the most staunch liberals in the lamestream media are not going to be able to deny, much less cover up or slant in their usual way.

Can Biden win against Trump overwhelmingly in 2020? If I am basing the idea on anything current, the answer is a resounding no. Trump will serve two terms. And those two terms are going to be a successful presidency that will mimic former successes like Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan, and okay...I'll give you Bill Clinton. You can't deny he was a successful president too.

BEYOND ALL THAT, I think based on his age alone, Biden will be a nominee if he decides to run, and I think he just might. But he will never be in the White House again. Trump's going to be too successful, and the clock is not on Biden's side. Just saying.

There Is No History on History

SO, ONE MIGHT ASK WHAT DOES IT MATTER THAT THE HISTORY CHANNEL ISN'T REALLY ABOUT HISTORY? Well, perhaps it is no different than what has happened to so many other "niche" cable channels before it, and presumably that will also come after it.

The Discovery Channel is far removed from what it originally was. So is TLC for that matter. And probably one of the first of the cable channels I can remember who made their mark that left their old purpose and format was none other than MTV.

DID YOU KNOW THAT AT ONE TIME MTV, ALSO KNOWN AS MUSIC TELEVISION, ACTUALLY AIRED MUSIC?

Yeah. MTV got its start doing 24 hours of music video presentation. So did VH1. Neither of those channels even compares to their former selves. They ditched that old programming what seems like a decade or more ago.

I am SURE it all has to do with ratings. Or, perhaps stated better, the lack of any. Maybe there is indeed another reason behind the changes these channels make to their lineups. But as republican senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa put it once on Twitter, "Again no history. Change name of channel to 'Et Cetera.'"

AT THE END OF THE DAY WHO CARES RIGHT?

Yeah. I'll admit. There is some truth to that. Life is full of many more important things to get our panties in a bunch over. If nothing else, when you tune into The History Channel or Discovery or MTV, you ALREADY KNOW you're not going to get what the channel's name suggests as far as programming is concerned.

But I also think, despite the dollars and cents and the grab for ratings, why can't we simply have some channels in our cable choices that cater to smaller audiences who want specifically what those channels are offering? I mean, all of us certainly PAY ENOUGH to the satellite and dish and cable companies for all of those channels. 

Why do all 300 channels have to have the same, "most popular" content? Why do they all have to follow each other and all do the same thing? How is that choice? How is that better than what we had before? How does this differentiate one channel from the other? And then, if they are all going to have the same content, why have all the channels?

I really DON'T CARE AT THE END OF THE DAY what any of these channels decide to do with their programming. I generally narrow my choices down anyway. But one thing it DOES say to me is that eventually what it will do is push people more and more away from cable companies, and pave the way for either channels to individually compete on a separate basis, or will pave the way for alternative companies to set up shop and let people pay for the exact programming they are interested in watching. 

RIGHT NOW THESE CHANNELS GET PAID WHETHER YOU WATCH OR NOT. If things go a different direction and people pay for individualized content, channels like these won't be able to command as much from advertisers, and they will have to cater to very specific audiences with programming that matters pertinent to what they call themselves.

Roseanne Barr's Show Revival Will Crash and Burn

SOME THINGS ARE BETTER SIMPLY LEFT UNDONE. Like say, a revival of Roseanne. Despite my dislike for all things that Roseanne, a committed liberal, believes in outside of the show she did, I cannot deny that the show was a good one. I'd even go as far as to say it was iconic. 

Certainly one of the successes of the show was that it simply was a typical all-American family struggling through life as so many Americans do.

Simply put, it resonated resoundingly with typical everyday people like you and I.

FOR OTHER REASONS I think there were a lot of shows that had their day, and were profoundly successful for so many reasons it would be impossible to break it all down. Surely one such show that comes to mind is the Carol Burnett Show. The antics and the chemistry of that team of talented comedians was a force to be reckoned with to be sure.

For a long time I have even held, and do to this day, that the Carol Burnett Show was even perhaps one of the BEST COMEDIES ON TELEVISION ever. And while I'd love to see what's left of the cast come back and try it again...

YOU SIMPLY CANNOT DO IT LIKE THAT AGAIN!

I remember a long time ago reading an article that asked Jim Carey why he never did a third PET DETECTIVE movie. His answer?

Jim Carey thought that by the time he'd jump into character for Pet Detective a third time around, he'd not be original anymore. He'd simply be doing an impersonation of the character he created and it wouldn't be funny anymore. Or good.

And so that was the end of Pet Detective. And I think he was right in his way of thinking to be honest.

Carol Burnett cannot come back and copy what she did with her show and be successful in doing that. Take another show that I think would fall under the same frame of thought.

SEINFELD!

Granted, here you have a cast who all are alive and well and quite frankly still funny. And they've mostly all gone on to have successful careers post-Seinfeld. But even if this team, and even the writers, all got back together to revive the show and hope to have a newly found success similar to the one they enjoyed before, they'd all be kidding themselves.

Seinfeld was funny for the show that it was. But it was also funny because it was fresh and everyone involved was having the time of their lives. Anyone would be a fool to think that they could do that again and have a successful show.

So, why does Roseanne think her show will be different? I really have no idea. Besides the idea that she essentially killed the show when her and Dan ultimately won the lottery. It was so far removed from the entire concept of the show that it just fell flat.

DO THEY COME BACK POOR AGAIN AFTER HAVING LIVED THE GOOD LIFE? AND DIDN'T HER AND DAN GET DIVORCED EVENTUALLY? 

I didn't do the research for this as I don't feel it is necessary, and honestly don't remember. Either way I don't it matters one iota.

Roseanne would do well do leave her show in the annals of history. There is even some thought that comes to mind that trying to revive the show may keep newer audiences from having any interest in tuning into any reruns of the old show.

IF THE NEW SHOW IS LOUSY, and I happen to think it will be, IT IS THE NEW SHOW AUDIENCES WILL REMEMBER.

In a nutshell, don't ruin a good thing is what I say. Of course, my advice is not really advise. It's just an opinion. And no one in Hollywood, and certainly not Roseanne Barr herself, will be reading this commentary and be persuaded to change her mind.

THAT ALL ASIDE, you do have some actors and personalities in their later years, their careers essentially dried up, who go on to pawn off their talents to skin creams, pain ointments, and dietary supplements. Maybe they need the money. Maybe Roseanne needs the money.

Or maybe she really has something up her sleeve that she can pull off her show's revival. I doubt it. But only time will tell. Will I tune in? Probably. Just because I am curious. But I think once the curiosity is done and my opinion is confirmed to be fact...

I'LL JUST MOVE ON LIKE I THINK SHE PROBABLY SHOULD...HAVE.