Jail for Hillary?

        The first option is that Hillary is totally innocent.  She does claim it is all a Republican conspiracy.  If you buy that, I have a bridge to sell you. 

        The second option is that laws only apply to the poor.  If you are rich and part of the political elite, you are above the law.  Many people feel this is the case.  Even President Richard Nixon said, “If the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.”  Hillary is certainly rich and part of the political elite, so she will get a pass.

        The third option is that the political elite or establishment, both Republican and Democrat, does not want to have the public know how corrupt the establishment is so they all will give her a pass.  She will never be indicted in order to protect the integrity of the Washington DC establishment.    

        The fourth option is that she is elected President.  She will then have the power to make sure she is cleared of all charges.  She will put people in office that will do what she wants. 

        The fifth option is that Hillary does not get elected, but a Republican establishment candidate is elected.  All charges will go away for the same reason as number three.  The Washington establishment must be protected. 

        The sixth and last option is that a Republican outsider candidate is elected President.  In this scenario, Hillary will plead guilty to any possible charges, and President Obama will pardon her on his last day in office.  She must be rewarded for protecting him.

        There is no scenario that Hilary will ever serve jail time; her Teflon coating is impenetrable.  That is the nature of our present government.  Corruption is rewarded. 

        I hope that is going to change.

Marketing is Time Sensitive

        I have worked in marketing all my life.  It’s  interesting because the market is always changing.  A fortune can be spent on a study of how to most effectively market a product or service and the study may totally worthless by the time it is completed because the market has already shifted.   Consumer habits and technology are in a constant state of flux. 

        Advertising is only one small part of a marketing plan, and look at how it has changed.  There was a time when print ads in newspapers and magazines were the number one place for advertising budgets.  The effectiveness of print media was drastically altered by radio and TV.  Many advertising agencies fought this change.  

        TV advertising was very big for many years when there were only a few channels and everything was watched live.  Today there are hundreds of channels.  With the exception of the news and sports, I record everything, and when I watch, I skip the ads.  TV ads are not effective if no one sees them.  Super Bowl ads would be the exception, but those ads cost millions. 

        Computers, cell phones, the Internet, and social media have changed marketing and advertising.  Technology is constantly changing.  An Internet marketing tool may work great the first time and continually lose effectiveness with every succeeding campaign.  

        Promoting books is a good example.  One site may be very effective at promoting an author’s book, but loses effectiveness as the site has more competition and the novelty wears off for the consumer.

       I have seen new start-up businesses spend their entire marketing budget on an impressive website and believe that customers will flock to them.  A web site alone will not work; something has to direct the customer to the web site. 

        The tools and the media change, but the basics for marketing and advertising never change.  For example, the guideline for newspaper advertising stated that; an ad had to run three times for the consumer to see it, six times for the consumer the read it, and nine times for the consumer to remember it.  This is still true today.  An ad in any media will not produce significant results with a one-time exposure. 

        A complete market plan must be developed with an adequate budget for implementation.  For more about marketing, visit http://BusinessFits.com.

        Marketing of political candidates is the same in many ways.  The big difference is that results don’t have to justify the money spent on the campaign.  Big money will donate to all candidates and both parties; because they want to cover all their bases and receive the special consideration they are buying regardless of who wins.  They know their return on investment will be good as long as they can keep big government and the political elite in power. 

        This election may bring about real change.  Campaign tactics have changed.  Big money may not be able to guarantee an establishment candidate.  The establishment and big money are afraid of losing control.  We could actually have a fed-up public elect someone who will work for the people and not big government.

     As Lincoln said in the Gettysburg address, “…that the government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”  I hope we are there before it is too late.

I Need to Find a Business That Can't Fail

        “I need to find a business that can’t fail,” is one of the myths I address in my book, Business Fits.  There is no such thing.  No single business fits every person’s goals and talents.  No business fits in every area.  No business fits every individual’s investment guidelines. 

        Even if there were a business model that couldn’t fail, that business could still fail if the owner doesn’t follow the business system.  For example, if a business is dependant on direct mail for customers and the owner doesn’t send out any direct mail, the business will fail.

        The most common error is to think the product or service is so good and in such high demand, that customers will flock to the business. This is hardly ever true.  The potential customer may never know the product or service is even available without the right marketing. 

        A business might be right for Joe Blow who is an extrovert and loves talking to people and enjoys selling.  The same business could be a total disaster for Jane Doe who is an introvert and hates to sell.  Please note, I never mentioned a product or service.  It is irrelevant.

        For more about how to find the right business for you, go to:  http://BusinessFits.com

False Claims

       I have a couple decades of experience with franchising both on the franchisor side and as a franchisee.  Franchising is highly regulated, and the franchisor is prohibited from making earnigs claims of any kind except for Item 19 in the Uniform Franchise Offering Circular or UFOC.

      Anything that can be interpreted as an earnings claim outside of Item 19 in the UFOC is subject to both state and federal penalties, and civil actions.  I recently looked at a new franchise’s web site.  The site said, on average, a 100% Return-On-Investment was achieved in XX months.  This was definitly an earnings claim and illegal.  Learn more about franchising and UFOCs in Business Fits.   

                        http://BusinessFits.com

     Any business that makes false advertising claims is subject to civil actions and sometimes criminal charges.  Why do we not hold out government bureaucrats and politicians to the same standard?  We expect and accept politicians lying, and worse yet, these lies are believed.  Public servants should be held to a higher standard.

       The media and advertisers should be held liable for political false statements just like any other business.   This false advertising is more damaging to the general population than any false product or service advertising. 

      Super PACs seem to have no responsibility or liability to anyone including the political candidate they are supporting.  PAC is an acronym for Political Action Committee. I find it disgusting when a political candidate claims to have no control over the Super PAC.

     Political ads directed at the youth vote are some of the worst. They are so slanted and untrue that I find them offensive to my intelligence.  However, these false ads must be effective or money would not be spent on them.  IF these blatant lies are effective, what does it say about the political intelligence of our youth?

           Why do we accept that politicians lie?  They should be liable for their lies just like any business.  If they make the lies in Congress, I think they should also be charged with perjury.  Any statement in Congress should be considered to be under oath.

        There is one candidate, and only one, that agrees with everything I have just said.  If you agree with what I have said, I am sure you are voting for that person.  If you don’t know who it is, do some research.

       I hear people say that a Presidential candidate must be able to unify the party.  This is true for both Democrats and Republicans.  Personally, I could care less about uniting either party.  We have too much partisan division now.  I want a Presidential candidate that will unite the country including independents and people that have not been involved in politics before.

       Dr. Ben Carson and others have expressed an opinion that the Republican establishment would rather have Hillary Clinton win than Donald Trump because Clinton would preserve big government and Washington power.  This is scary considering they would be giving up their conservative principles and the Supreme Court for a generation.  

The Goal of Islam

      

        Why does the White House avoid the words "Islamic Terrorists"?  Why can't we Identify this enemy?  Why are we losing the war on terror?  Why are terrorist attacks around the world growing in numbers?  How can we protect ourselves from Islamic Terrorists?  Some of the answers are obvious, but not politically correct.  

    Many words and descriptions may be offensive, but accurately describe a situation.  Banning the use of these words is just burying our heads in the sand.  This misguided political correctness only makes the problem worse.       

      The argument that alienating Muslims will promote radical Islam is certainly proven wrong with the recent bombings in Belgium.   Belgium is as friendly to Muslims as any country could be that does not have Islam as a state mandated religion. 

     We have taken political correctness to such an extreme that we no longer have freedom of speech.  It is impossible to accurately describe the Islamic religion and still be politically correct.  what liberals call freedom of speech does not allow anyone to say anything that could possibly offend anyone.

      There are exceptions. It is okay to bash conservatives, Republicans, and Christians.  Christians are prohibited from expressing their religion in any way that might offend anyone from another religion.  This is denying a right guaranteed in the First Amendment.  But Muslims are allowed prayer time in some schools.

       Our enemies in WWII were Germany and Japan.  After their defeat, democratic governments similar to the U.S. were implemented in those countries and both thrive today.  This same approach does not work in Muslim countries.  

      We went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  These wars may or may not have been justified, but the consequence was a destabilization of the Middle East.  There was no viable exit plan. 

        Constitutions were adopted that were modeled after our Constitution with a couple changes.  Islam was made the official state religion and Sharia Law was recognized.  Neither are compatible or workable with our Constitution.  What idiot thought this could ever work?

       We must recognize the basics of the Islamic religion.  There are few similarities with other religions.  If we try to reason with Muslims with the same love and compassion we accept, we will lose.  We have to understand what the religion teaches. 

       The Koran clearly states that Islam is not a religion of peace, but many try to interpret it as such.  Verses like “Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.” are hard to misinterpret.

       The objective of Islam is very clear.  History shows an unwavering goal of world domination by any means.  We can look as far back as the Crusades.  Many great statesmen like Thomas Jefferson, Winston Churchill, and Andrew McCarthy make the goal of Islam quite clear.  McCarthy was the lead prosecutor of the blind sheik and 11 others for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

       We must be realistic about the goal of Islam. We can look at Isis, al Qaeda, Hamas, or the Muslim Brotherhood.  The objective is always the same.  We must deal with the reality of Islam. 

      We don’t want an official state religion.  Allah clearly states that it is the duty of all Muslims to wage jihad until Islam and Sharia Law are established world wide.   

       We protect and cherish personal civil liberties.  Islam considers woman as property, and the penalty for   homosexuality is death.  We try to protect woman and children, and Islam terrorists use them as suicide bombers.  Islamic fighters use schools and hospitals as bases for artillery because they know we try to avoid civilian casualties. 

       We give terrorists the benefit of our legal system, and avoid enhanced interrogation methods.  They behead people.  There is a saying, “Don’t take a knife to a gun fight.”  We are taking on Islamic bombs with talking. 

        Islam is using our ignorance of their objective and our Christian morality to their advantage this misguided political correctness this misguided political correctness and laughing at how naive we are.  We have to wake up before we have widespread terror and Sharia Law in this county. 

The Entrepreneurial Myth

        Most of my recent posts have been devoted to politics, so let’s look at the business today.  It is my hope that real common sense political change in 2017 will promote business, the economy, and entrepreneurship.  

        “Do what you know and love and you will be a success” is one of the myths about starting a business that I address in my book, Business Fits.  It is often referred to as The Entrepreneurial Myth, and in my opinion is the fourth leading cause of new business failure. 

        People must have a passion for their daily activity.  If someone doesn’t like what they’re doing, they will be unhappy and they won’t be successful. 

        The problem occurs when the entrepreneur has a passion for a product or service, and does not consider  his/her role in the business.  Having a passion for a job seldom has anything to do with the product or service.

        I once had a client who we will call Jim.  He loved bicycling, so he went to work for a store selling bicycles.  Jim worked in that store for seventeen years and hated his job.  Eventually, he became so unhappy that he foolishly quit with no job or business, something I would never advise. 

        Jim started to look at his options for owning a business.  His current hobby was horses and riding.  One of his neighbors suggested making a business out of his love for horses, but Jim was too smart to make that mistake again.   He didn’t want to ruin another hobby by turning it into work. 

        Anyone thinking about a business should read my book, Business Fits by Terry Oliver Lee.  It is available on Amazon as an eBook or a paperback.

        I also recommend reading The E-Myth Revisited by Michael E. Gerber to learn more about the entrepreneurial myth.  Gerber gives some great examples of running a business vs. working in the business.  

        One of his examples is a woman who loves to bake pies.   She starts a business making and selling pies.  She has to give up the making pies, which she loves, to have the business survive.  She has to let someone else bake the pies so she can devote her time to running the business and developing a complete business system.   

        I am interested in helping aspiring entrepreneurs, and offer a free phone consultation to guide them.  Contact me through my website http://BusinessFits.com or e-mail me at TerryOliverLee@gmail.com.

A Political Analysis

        I watch a lot of news and I find it strange that I have never seen the analysis I am going to put forward concerning the Republican Presidential campaign.  As of last Tuesday, Donald Trump has won 15 states plus DC, Ted Cruz has won eleven states, and Marco Rubio has won one state plus Puerto Rico.  Rubio and Kasich are probably irrelevant at this point.

        Political commentators come up with all kinds of ideas as to why each candidate won or lost every state, but I they missed one analysis.  We need to look at which states were caucuses and which were primaries. 

        The only state Rubio won was the Minnesota caucus.  He also won the primary in Puerto Rico, which could almost be considered his home. 

        Cruz won eleven states.  All were caucuses except for primaries in his home state of Texas and Idaho.  His win in Texas makes sense, but I don’t understand Idaho except the state might be pretty far right and associate with Cruz. 

        Trump has won every primary except for Texas, Idaho, and the territory of Puerto Rico.  What does this tell us? 

        As I mentioned in a previous blog, there is a big difference between a caucus and a primary.  I lived in Iowa and am familiar with how a caucus works.  A caucus is a little like management by committee.  One or two strong individuals can, and do control the results of a caucus.  This means that the party establishment has a large influence on the outcome of a caucus.  This explains why Cruz won seven caucuses and Rubio won one.  Trump did win the Nevada and Hawaii caucuses.  Maybe there is not a strong Republican establishment in those two states.

        The party establishment has less influence on the outcome of a primary, because voters are alone in that voting booth and can vote their true feelings.  Primaries can be open or closed.  For example, in a closed Republican primary, only previously registered Republicans can vote. 

        In an open primary, anyone can vote for candidates in either party, but not both.  This means independents and even Democrats can vote in the Republican primary for the person of their choice. 

        The party establishment will have more control in a closed primary than in an open primary.  This may explain why Cruz won Idaho. 

        Another interesting fact is that the number of people voting in Republican primaries is up an average of 65%, while Democratic primary voters are down 35%.  This represents millions of people who had not voted in a Republican primary before.  Since Trump won these primaries, it is safe to assume the increase in voting is due to him being in the race. 

        The Republican Party establishment is doing everything possible to stop Trump.  Their claim is that he is not really a conservative and they don’t know what he will do if elected.  I think they know exactly what he will do.  They fear he will put an end to the current big government establishment and the growth of government. 

        In spite of the Washington and the Republican establishment, Trump wins if the public gets to vote.  This is also in spite of being outspent many times over.  It is clear that the voting public is totally fed up with big government, big money, the Washington D.C. establishment, and the political elite.  They see Trump as a solution and love his lack of political correctness.

        I have known people who do not exercise their right to vote.  Their attitude was that it was all rigged and their vote did not count anyway, so why vote.   People are frightened for our freedoms, and are voting in the primaries for what they perceive to be a common sense change. 

        The increased interest in the Republican primaries provides a great opportunity for the party, which has been in decline for the last couple decades.  If the Republican Party accepts what the people want, it could rise to great heights.  If they continue to support the establishment, the party may be finished.  Either way, the old Republican Party will cease to exist.