We are told in three times in the Bible that We are Created in God's Own Image. Shouldn't that make us question, what that image might be? What does that make us? God, is the great Creator, if we are created in His image wouldn't that also make us creators? How did God Create? He spoke the world into existence, couldn't that mean that we are too creating our own world by the words we speak?
If that is true, and I believe it is, shouldn't we be very careful what we say? Yet, we seem to be so cavalier with what we say about ourselves and others. It makes me cringe when I hear people speak about themselves in negative terms, when they speak of "Their depression," "their cancer," even "their overwhelming debts," quit owning those things. What you speak of you will get more of.
Remember you are creating your world by the words of your mouth, make sure that words you are using creates a world that you want. Speak of where you want to be, where you want to go. If you are struggling financially, speak of where you want to be, speak of being debt free, secure, independent. If you are fighting illness speak of health, speak of where you want to be. Speak of overcoming a disease if you want, but NEVER claim the disease, never call it yours.
Never accept anyone else's label for you or your life, unless it is the same vision you have of where you want to be. You do not need anyone else's permission for you to reach your goals and dreams, only your own. Les Brown tells a story of when he was in school, he had been labled "Educable Mentally Retarded," once when a coach/teacher saw him hanging out near a class room he told Les to go to the board and work out a problem, Les explained why he couldn't by using his label he had been given. This coach threw a fit, "Never accept someone else's label, go do the problem." It was one of the key turning points of Les Brown's successful life journey. Do not allow someone else's opinion of you rob you of yours.
God didn't make any junk, you are a miracle of birth, you have unlimited potential but that is up to you to turn into reality. Watch you words, speak the world you want, and if you must be Hung by the Tongue makes sure it is a masterpiece.
A good book on this topic is "Hung By The Tongue," by Francis P. Martin.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Mass Transit in Indy? Now?
Today Mayor Ballard has come out saying that "Now is the time" we put forth a mass transit plan in Indianapolis. There are a small group of people pushing for this, politicians, politicians in REALTOR clothing, and politicians in downtown development clothing. They all want to rush something through during their election cycle so they can be the ones who "gave" Indianapolis this great "gift." Or better said, give them the gift that just keeps on taking.
Indianapolis does not need an enhanced mass transit system right now, in fact it is likely at least twenty years from that need. Our current one is anything but well utilized, or self-sustaining. We would be spending 1.3 billion dollars shared between us and the Federal Government, who by the way is also us, to purchase something we don't yet need, and likely will barely use. Then we will be given the opportunity to pay millions more per year in operating losses over the next twenty years hoping that it will be mostly covering its own costs by then. After twenty years, how much of that initial infrastructure purchase will be required to replace? How much will that be?
After a brutal fight to cut our property taxes, we are being asked to allow them to be raised so we can see a train running through town several times a day. Has any thought been given to the traffic jams that it will cause at every intersection from the North side to Downtown to allow the trains to go by all day? Has any thought been given to the cost in human lives and property damage to the danger of these trains running all day in a densely populated area? What consideration has been given to the property values and quality of life issues, such as noise, dirt, and danger that will be a result of the trains running up and down along homes along the way?
I agree we should be looking into long-term solutions, but by taking a long-term approach. We have the benefit of time, let's use it, rather than jumping in as if we are backed into a corner, let's take our time, and explore options. If we feel we have a good solution, if we feel we are well served to start procuring land and property, then start that process.
However, right now it seems more that a group of politicians in all walks of life, are just wanting to have their pictures taken cutting the ribbon with no thought of the massive losses of dollars and frankly quality of life for the city in the near term.
Indianapolis does not need an enhanced mass transit system right now, in fact it is likely at least twenty years from that need. Our current one is anything but well utilized, or self-sustaining. We would be spending 1.3 billion dollars shared between us and the Federal Government, who by the way is also us, to purchase something we don't yet need, and likely will barely use. Then we will be given the opportunity to pay millions more per year in operating losses over the next twenty years hoping that it will be mostly covering its own costs by then. After twenty years, how much of that initial infrastructure purchase will be required to replace? How much will that be?
After a brutal fight to cut our property taxes, we are being asked to allow them to be raised so we can see a train running through town several times a day. Has any thought been given to the traffic jams that it will cause at every intersection from the North side to Downtown to allow the trains to go by all day? Has any thought been given to the cost in human lives and property damage to the danger of these trains running all day in a densely populated area? What consideration has been given to the property values and quality of life issues, such as noise, dirt, and danger that will be a result of the trains running up and down along homes along the way?
I agree we should be looking into long-term solutions, but by taking a long-term approach. We have the benefit of time, let's use it, rather than jumping in as if we are backed into a corner, let's take our time, and explore options. If we feel we have a good solution, if we feel we are well served to start procuring land and property, then start that process.
However, right now it seems more that a group of politicians in all walks of life, are just wanting to have their pictures taken cutting the ribbon with no thought of the massive losses of dollars and frankly quality of life for the city in the near term.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Post Election 2012, Where Are We, Where Are We Going?
"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated." Thomas Payne
I just thought all of us could benefit from reading those words written in December of 1776 when all looked lost in our countries Revolution for Independence. With that said, if you think I am going to get Pollyanna with rose-colored glasses and blow smoke up your skirt you are going to be disappointed.
We just went through a very hard fought election and ended up in figuratively the same place we were going in. We went in with an either incompetent or intentionally destructive president, a Senate Leader who has decided to put that chamber in a total deep freeze with nothing ever coming to the floor, and a House that is opposed to both. We went to bed Tuesday night/Wednesday morning exactly the same, at least on the surface.
What actually changed is the likely end of The United States of America as a Free Market Capitalist based economy in a Representative Constitutional Republic under the Rule of Law. At least for as long as most of us will be living, and that is optimistic, it is likely gone forever.
What are we up against?
1. Obamacare will be fully implemented, in so doing it will enslave ALL Americans to owe their very lives to the whims of the government bureaucracy. This is slavery as much as any shackles and chains could ever reach. For this reason government healthcare is always the first thing any Totalitarian Regime puts into place.
2. Dodd-Frank will stay the law and will be more and more rolled out. This essentially ends any semblance of the free market system, now government has total control over any financial transaction.
3. Obama will choose the next three Supreme Court Justices who will stack the court with a 6-3 lead assuring a Marxist Constitutional Revisionist view for the next 20-30 years. One could argue right now that the game is over, fulfilling Nikita Khrushchev’s prophecy. That we would not be defeated from outside but would vote for Communism from within.
It appears that the One Party Rule that is tied to a dependent voter base who relies on government for their lives is complete. It was started under Woodrow Wilson, put on steroids under FDR, another shot of steroids by LBJ, and maybe harvested by BHO. The goal was to get enough people who abdicated their very lives to government largess who would always vote to keep Democrats in office to protect their goodie bag.
So what's next? Do we just give up? Do we figure out how to best take care of ourselves and our families in the "new" world and let the rest go? Do we fight back? What's Next?
First of all I would strongly recommend no matter what you do about the country that you first and foremost figure out the best way to take care of yourself and your family in our new reality.
What can we do to try to save our Republic? Of course America will go on, look at Europe, we will survive just not the way we could or should unless we can figure out a strategy to take it back. There is not going to be any easy path. The last best chance we had ended Tuesday night. It is now a series of long-shots. We have a chance to help a bit in 2014 if we can figure out a path to take the Senate and stop Obama from doing further damage in the last two years of his second term. Who knows, maybe those three judges will hang in for two more years. That would be HUGE!
As expected after a loss, especially one where we were so blindsided, a lot of finger pointing is going on. The old school blames the tea party, the tea party blames the "RINOs", our candidate was too moderate, too conservative, too negative, not negative enough, whatever. There is likely some blame to spread around, but I don't think it is really anyone who is to blame, it is more than that. We just had more people choose freebies than freedom, and that is a problem. I have heard we need to "reach out to the single women, minorities, immigrants, and those who want a bigger and bigger social net to take care of them. In my opinion if that is our approach, why bother, why be copies of the Democrats? Holding offices with an R instead of a D but doing the same things is not a win in any way.
My thoughts are we need to go all out to take the shot at the Senate in 2014. Then if we win the Senate we try to start dialing things back, but make sure that nothing of the Obama ideology is pushed forward. Win or lose that race we need to start looking long term. If we are to make a come back to our Constitutional and Free Market principles we have to educate our electorate. We have for far too many decades allowed the left to indoctrinate and not educate our children. Beginning in the 1950s we were taught revisionist history, in what history we were taught. Each decade became significantly worse, today our kids are getting out of school with virtually no understanding of our country's history and how it came to be, or what makes it work. They have been instead taught that all of those things were evil if taught at all. They have been indoctrinated on television, in the movies, in their music, and schools, and now we are shocked they don't love our country and what it stands for.
We need to find a way to get our hands back into the schools, but short term, I have an idea. Instead of running a billion dollars of ads bashing our opponents, we MUST educate our electorate. We could take advantage of those ad buys to start doing so. What if we picked five keys to our platform and had ads teaching the advantages of that issue, do so with clever visuals and catchy jingles that will get stuck in people's head. We all can sing along to the jingles of commercials from decades before if we can "get into the voter's heads" we might start getting through to them. Run the ads on the shows that young voters watch and start reprogramming them. If we do not win the Senate and House in 2014, this will be starting the program to hope to turn this country back by our grandchildren's time. If we can win the Senate, we might be able to take it back sooner.
I know this isn't all kittens and sunshine, but this is how I see it today.
I just thought all of us could benefit from reading those words written in December of 1776 when all looked lost in our countries Revolution for Independence. With that said, if you think I am going to get Pollyanna with rose-colored glasses and blow smoke up your skirt you are going to be disappointed.
We just went through a very hard fought election and ended up in figuratively the same place we were going in. We went in with an either incompetent or intentionally destructive president, a Senate Leader who has decided to put that chamber in a total deep freeze with nothing ever coming to the floor, and a House that is opposed to both. We went to bed Tuesday night/Wednesday morning exactly the same, at least on the surface.
What actually changed is the likely end of The United States of America as a Free Market Capitalist based economy in a Representative Constitutional Republic under the Rule of Law. At least for as long as most of us will be living, and that is optimistic, it is likely gone forever.
What are we up against?
1. Obamacare will be fully implemented, in so doing it will enslave ALL Americans to owe their very lives to the whims of the government bureaucracy. This is slavery as much as any shackles and chains could ever reach. For this reason government healthcare is always the first thing any Totalitarian Regime puts into place.
2. Dodd-Frank will stay the law and will be more and more rolled out. This essentially ends any semblance of the free market system, now government has total control over any financial transaction.
3. Obama will choose the next three Supreme Court Justices who will stack the court with a 6-3 lead assuring a Marxist Constitutional Revisionist view for the next 20-30 years. One could argue right now that the game is over, fulfilling Nikita Khrushchev’s prophecy. That we would not be defeated from outside but would vote for Communism from within.
It appears that the One Party Rule that is tied to a dependent voter base who relies on government for their lives is complete. It was started under Woodrow Wilson, put on steroids under FDR, another shot of steroids by LBJ, and maybe harvested by BHO. The goal was to get enough people who abdicated their very lives to government largess who would always vote to keep Democrats in office to protect their goodie bag.
So what's next? Do we just give up? Do we figure out how to best take care of ourselves and our families in the "new" world and let the rest go? Do we fight back? What's Next?
First of all I would strongly recommend no matter what you do about the country that you first and foremost figure out the best way to take care of yourself and your family in our new reality.
What can we do to try to save our Republic? Of course America will go on, look at Europe, we will survive just not the way we could or should unless we can figure out a strategy to take it back. There is not going to be any easy path. The last best chance we had ended Tuesday night. It is now a series of long-shots. We have a chance to help a bit in 2014 if we can figure out a path to take the Senate and stop Obama from doing further damage in the last two years of his second term. Who knows, maybe those three judges will hang in for two more years. That would be HUGE!
As expected after a loss, especially one where we were so blindsided, a lot of finger pointing is going on. The old school blames the tea party, the tea party blames the "RINOs", our candidate was too moderate, too conservative, too negative, not negative enough, whatever. There is likely some blame to spread around, but I don't think it is really anyone who is to blame, it is more than that. We just had more people choose freebies than freedom, and that is a problem. I have heard we need to "reach out to the single women, minorities, immigrants, and those who want a bigger and bigger social net to take care of them. In my opinion if that is our approach, why bother, why be copies of the Democrats? Holding offices with an R instead of a D but doing the same things is not a win in any way.
My thoughts are we need to go all out to take the shot at the Senate in 2014. Then if we win the Senate we try to start dialing things back, but make sure that nothing of the Obama ideology is pushed forward. Win or lose that race we need to start looking long term. If we are to make a come back to our Constitutional and Free Market principles we have to educate our electorate. We have for far too many decades allowed the left to indoctrinate and not educate our children. Beginning in the 1950s we were taught revisionist history, in what history we were taught. Each decade became significantly worse, today our kids are getting out of school with virtually no understanding of our country's history and how it came to be, or what makes it work. They have been instead taught that all of those things were evil if taught at all. They have been indoctrinated on television, in the movies, in their music, and schools, and now we are shocked they don't love our country and what it stands for.
We need to find a way to get our hands back into the schools, but short term, I have an idea. Instead of running a billion dollars of ads bashing our opponents, we MUST educate our electorate. We could take advantage of those ad buys to start doing so. What if we picked five keys to our platform and had ads teaching the advantages of that issue, do so with clever visuals and catchy jingles that will get stuck in people's head. We all can sing along to the jingles of commercials from decades before if we can "get into the voter's heads" we might start getting through to them. Run the ads on the shows that young voters watch and start reprogramming them. If we do not win the Senate and House in 2014, this will be starting the program to hope to turn this country back by our grandchildren's time. If we can win the Senate, we might be able to take it back sooner.
I know this isn't all kittens and sunshine, but this is how I see it today.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Home Energy Report
The Indianapolis Energy Report arrived yesterday in my mailbox. Did you get yours? The last one that came drove my curiosity about what it was they were trying to tell me because their numbers made no sense to me what-so-ever.
The report tells me that I use more energy than 100% of my neighbors, costing me 88% more or 161.16 more a month than my average neighbor pays. That would be pretty impressive dropping my total electric bill for my heat, air conditioning, water heater, lights for a family of 3 including a teenage girl, to less than 40.00/month on average! My neighbors must be amazing.
When I talked to a few neighbors they too were all the worst energy hogs as well. So I talked to others from work and friends and guess what? Everyone I know is an over achieving energy hog! This made me more curious and I checked into it further and learned that IPL was just one client of the company that does these energy reports in the utilities name. The company making the report is OPower a company that formed in 2007. So, utility companies all across America "hire" OPower to try to convince their customers to use less of the product the utility is selling.
Opower is one of the true success stories during this economy, they are skyrocketing in growth. It is pretty impressive that a small start up can line up dozens of huge utility companies in just a handful of years, it makes me wonder if the Government EPA requires these services, how about you?
The more I read on the company, their founders, the more questions I had about this report showing up in all our mailboxes. However when I learned about their Chief Scientist things started to clear up. What would you assume that Dr. Robert Cialdini would be an expert in? Since this is about energy savings and energy efficiency, wouldn't you guess that it would be involved somewhere in the energy, or heating or cooling specialities? You would guess wrong, Dr. Cialdini, is a leading expert on group manipulation and compliance psychology? Did you get that? I have to admit I missed it on my first guess. Why would their top scientist be someone to create mass compliance? Does this creep you out?
Would it be a stretch to believe that we are being manipulated? Does it seem a stretch to believe that you and I are paying extra in our utility bills to pay for this "service?" If it is all nonsense and everyone is being told we are the worst to guilt us into using less energy, what value is this service. One of my neighbors was rated the worst, but their house was sitting empty for three months with all utilities turned off and it was still an energy hog, hmmm?
Check yours.
The report tells me that I use more energy than 100% of my neighbors, costing me 88% more or 161.16 more a month than my average neighbor pays. That would be pretty impressive dropping my total electric bill for my heat, air conditioning, water heater, lights for a family of 3 including a teenage girl, to less than 40.00/month on average! My neighbors must be amazing.
When I talked to a few neighbors they too were all the worst energy hogs as well. So I talked to others from work and friends and guess what? Everyone I know is an over achieving energy hog! This made me more curious and I checked into it further and learned that IPL was just one client of the company that does these energy reports in the utilities name. The company making the report is OPower a company that formed in 2007. So, utility companies all across America "hire" OPower to try to convince their customers to use less of the product the utility is selling.
Opower is one of the true success stories during this economy, they are skyrocketing in growth. It is pretty impressive that a small start up can line up dozens of huge utility companies in just a handful of years, it makes me wonder if the Government EPA requires these services, how about you?
The more I read on the company, their founders, the more questions I had about this report showing up in all our mailboxes. However when I learned about their Chief Scientist things started to clear up. What would you assume that Dr. Robert Cialdini would be an expert in? Since this is about energy savings and energy efficiency, wouldn't you guess that it would be involved somewhere in the energy, or heating or cooling specialities? You would guess wrong, Dr. Cialdini, is a leading expert on group manipulation and compliance psychology? Did you get that? I have to admit I missed it on my first guess. Why would their top scientist be someone to create mass compliance? Does this creep you out?
Would it be a stretch to believe that we are being manipulated? Does it seem a stretch to believe that you and I are paying extra in our utility bills to pay for this "service?" If it is all nonsense and everyone is being told we are the worst to guilt us into using less energy, what value is this service. One of my neighbors was rated the worst, but their house was sitting empty for three months with all utilities turned off and it was still an energy hog, hmmm?
Check yours.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Come Join The Second Revolution!
We are living at a time that is very similar to our nation's founding. The political animosity between different factions is nearly as ugly today as it was then, not quite as violent yet, not too many tar and feathings or house ram sackings going on today.
Our Founding Fathers, it could be said, were our first political bloggers. They were not people in position of political power, in fact for most the opposite. Yet they spoke out, but mostly they wrote out. They were pamphleteers, filled the letters to the editor's pages of the newspapers mostly writing under pseudonyms. Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, Benjamin Rush, and many more were prodigious writers, writing copious writings, helping us today understand their time and quest so much more clearly.
No one was more important in getting things started than Samuel Adams, who not only as a writer, but more so as a "community agitator" and Thomas Payne's booklet "Common Sense" as the driving force to start our quest for independence. It was also Thomas Payne's "Crisis" where he admonished the soldiers who were planning on leaving the fight during that cold hungry winter with "THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."
Even then, those who were the Patriots who were clamoring for freedom and independence were in the minority. Most Americans at the time were either Tories, who supported the King, or were independent and really didn't care that much, they were more interested in their own day by day existence. John Adams told us about this when he said that Americans in any conflict would be 1/3 passionately for it, 1/3 passionately against it, and 1/3 in the middle. It was that middle third what must be won. Today is no different than at his time.
Today's bloggers are fighting the very same fight, today the battle is not so much in the newspapers but on the computer screen, the Founders would have loved Social Media, it was exactly what they were doing without the power to reach so many so quickly.
I am proud to try to play a part today, we are at a crossroads today in this country. This election will determine what kind of country we will live in, one that is what our Founders gave us, or one that they tried to free us from. If you have a voice, be it in type, or speaking out, come join the 1/3 who are trying to save this nation!
Our Founding Fathers, it could be said, were our first political bloggers. They were not people in position of political power, in fact for most the opposite. Yet they spoke out, but mostly they wrote out. They were pamphleteers, filled the letters to the editor's pages of the newspapers mostly writing under pseudonyms. Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, Benjamin Rush, and many more were prodigious writers, writing copious writings, helping us today understand their time and quest so much more clearly.
No one was more important in getting things started than Samuel Adams, who not only as a writer, but more so as a "community agitator" and Thomas Payne's booklet "Common Sense" as the driving force to start our quest for independence. It was also Thomas Payne's "Crisis" where he admonished the soldiers who were planning on leaving the fight during that cold hungry winter with "THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."
Even then, those who were the Patriots who were clamoring for freedom and independence were in the minority. Most Americans at the time were either Tories, who supported the King, or were independent and really didn't care that much, they were more interested in their own day by day existence. John Adams told us about this when he said that Americans in any conflict would be 1/3 passionately for it, 1/3 passionately against it, and 1/3 in the middle. It was that middle third what must be won. Today is no different than at his time.
Today's bloggers are fighting the very same fight, today the battle is not so much in the newspapers but on the computer screen, the Founders would have loved Social Media, it was exactly what they were doing without the power to reach so many so quickly.
I am proud to try to play a part today, we are at a crossroads today in this country. This election will determine what kind of country we will live in, one that is what our Founders gave us, or one that they tried to free us from. If you have a voice, be it in type, or speaking out, come join the 1/3 who are trying to save this nation!
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Dinesh D'Souza's "2016"
One of the top selling movies this summer is a surprise hit by Dinesh D'Souza, the president of King's College in New York. This movie "2016" is a detailed look at Barack Obama, where he came from, who influenced his life, and an analysis of where those beliefs likely will materialize.
What I found was a very well researched documentary, one with an outstanding group of interviews with those who can help shine a light on who Obama, and his family were, and those who can enlighten what consequences his policies and ideologies will create in America and the world. I truly cannot say that I learned anything that I didn't already know. But then again, I have been obsessively studying Obama and all those around him since mid-year 2008. What I did see was a very fair view, not sensationalized, but simply documented.
Last week a friend of mine who idolizes Obama, posted that he went to see "2016" and walked out since it was the biggest propaganda film ever. I can see why he may not like it, he cannot stand hearing anything but praise to his god. However, I have to question if he actually saw the film, and didn't just post a review of what he believed it would be. From what I saw, I can understand why the Obama Administration has been as quiet about it as they have, frankly, I think D'Souza owes Obama royalties. Most of the movie is straight from Obama's own books. It is Obama's own words that D'Souza shares with the world.
There is a reason that I and so many others have spent inordinate time researching, preaching, filling up every one's Social Media walls with information. Like Dinesh D'Souza, we believe Obama to be living out his Dreams From His Father at all of America's, and ultimately the world's expense.
As the movie ended, we sat quietly and listened to the others exit conversations. I am not sure that there were many votes changed, but nearly everyone there was taken aback by all they did not know about their current president, and were not happy with what they learned.
If you have not seen it, do. If you have any friends who might be on the fence, buy them a ticket and take them with you.
What I found was a very well researched documentary, one with an outstanding group of interviews with those who can help shine a light on who Obama, and his family were, and those who can enlighten what consequences his policies and ideologies will create in America and the world. I truly cannot say that I learned anything that I didn't already know. But then again, I have been obsessively studying Obama and all those around him since mid-year 2008. What I did see was a very fair view, not sensationalized, but simply documented.
Last week a friend of mine who idolizes Obama, posted that he went to see "2016" and walked out since it was the biggest propaganda film ever. I can see why he may not like it, he cannot stand hearing anything but praise to his god. However, I have to question if he actually saw the film, and didn't just post a review of what he believed it would be. From what I saw, I can understand why the Obama Administration has been as quiet about it as they have, frankly, I think D'Souza owes Obama royalties. Most of the movie is straight from Obama's own books. It is Obama's own words that D'Souza shares with the world.
There is a reason that I and so many others have spent inordinate time researching, preaching, filling up every one's Social Media walls with information. Like Dinesh D'Souza, we believe Obama to be living out his Dreams From His Father at all of America's, and ultimately the world's expense.
As the movie ended, we sat quietly and listened to the others exit conversations. I am not sure that there were many votes changed, but nearly everyone there was taken aback by all they did not know about their current president, and were not happy with what they learned.
If you have not seen it, do. If you have any friends who might be on the fence, buy them a ticket and take them with you.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
We Have Met The Enemy.
As November approaches it is becoming very evident that Obama is in the fight of his life. It looks like his hard ceiling for support will be somewhere between 48 and 51 percent of the vote under ideal conditions for him. The election will likely come down to a Romney landslide or a very narrow win by Obama. Obama's best chance for reelection will be what happens with many of the conservative voters. We are, once again, proving to be our own worst enemies.
There are several things that are popping up on Social Media from some conservatives that could be used against us to give Obama a chance. Have you seen the calls for Impeachment, or for proving Obama's ineligibility to hold office due to his own press release that he was born in Kenya? At this point neither are beneficial to our quest of taking back the White House. Another thing that is prevalent is attacks against Romney for not being conservative enough. Really? Compared to Obama, Castro, Putin, and Hu Jintao, the leader of the Chinese Communist Party are all to the right of Obama, and all have criticized him for his overreaching push to make America Socialist. They know that the world's economy is tied to the economic engine of the American economy.
When you hear these comments please try to educate those saying them. Consider the Impeachment, and the attacks against the GOP controlled House for not impeaching Obama. Explain to them some basic civics, the House can indict the President, but then it goes to the Senate where they would either find him guilty or acquit him. It takes 3/4ths of the Senators to vote to Impeach and remove or he stays in power and survives. Remind them that the Senate contains 53 Senators who caucus as Democrats and only 47 Republicans. Do you really think Harry Reid and his buddies are going to show Obama the door? All we would accomplish is Impeach Obama in the House just as we did Bill Clinton. Let's not lose focus, We The People will "impeach" him on November 6th.
We all know that Obama wasn't vetted before 2008 and the Main Stream Media will not do it again this year. However, pursuing making Obama ineligible to run this year due to his press release that he was born in Kenya actually is a gift to the Democrats. This would be the greatest thing to happen to them, they could rid themselves of Obama and could run Hilary who, while being as far left as Obama, is well received by the public. I would love to see this explored after the elections to see if we can remove some of the things his signature put forth, hopefully a couple radical Supreme Court Justices, but let's wait until after the election.
As to Romney not being conservative "enough," granted he isn't the dream ideologue, but he is extremely competent, very qualified, and we can't compare him to our wish list of conservatives, he isn't running against them. We must compare him honestly with Obama who he is running against. In doing that he looks like Ronald Reagan.
Ultimately we must all come together and support Romney in defeating Obama. We are facing one of the three most critical elections in this nation's history, the 1800, 1860, and the 2012 all did, or will, determine if America survives as a Free Republic. We can argue about semantics again after the election, but now is the time for all Free men and women to come together to throw Obama to the trash bin of history.
There are several things that are popping up on Social Media from some conservatives that could be used against us to give Obama a chance. Have you seen the calls for Impeachment, or for proving Obama's ineligibility to hold office due to his own press release that he was born in Kenya? At this point neither are beneficial to our quest of taking back the White House. Another thing that is prevalent is attacks against Romney for not being conservative enough. Really? Compared to Obama, Castro, Putin, and Hu Jintao, the leader of the Chinese Communist Party are all to the right of Obama, and all have criticized him for his overreaching push to make America Socialist. They know that the world's economy is tied to the economic engine of the American economy.
When you hear these comments please try to educate those saying them. Consider the Impeachment, and the attacks against the GOP controlled House for not impeaching Obama. Explain to them some basic civics, the House can indict the President, but then it goes to the Senate where they would either find him guilty or acquit him. It takes 3/4ths of the Senators to vote to Impeach and remove or he stays in power and survives. Remind them that the Senate contains 53 Senators who caucus as Democrats and only 47 Republicans. Do you really think Harry Reid and his buddies are going to show Obama the door? All we would accomplish is Impeach Obama in the House just as we did Bill Clinton. Let's not lose focus, We The People will "impeach" him on November 6th.
We all know that Obama wasn't vetted before 2008 and the Main Stream Media will not do it again this year. However, pursuing making Obama ineligible to run this year due to his press release that he was born in Kenya actually is a gift to the Democrats. This would be the greatest thing to happen to them, they could rid themselves of Obama and could run Hilary who, while being as far left as Obama, is well received by the public. I would love to see this explored after the elections to see if we can remove some of the things his signature put forth, hopefully a couple radical Supreme Court Justices, but let's wait until after the election.
As to Romney not being conservative "enough," granted he isn't the dream ideologue, but he is extremely competent, very qualified, and we can't compare him to our wish list of conservatives, he isn't running against them. We must compare him honestly with Obama who he is running against. In doing that he looks like Ronald Reagan.
Ultimately we must all come together and support Romney in defeating Obama. We are facing one of the three most critical elections in this nation's history, the 1800, 1860, and the 2012 all did, or will, determine if America survives as a Free Republic. We can argue about semantics again after the election, but now is the time for all Free men and women to come together to throw Obama to the trash bin of history.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
What Was The Three-Fifths Compromise?
There are few things that are less understood than the 3/5th of a human that our Founders put into our Constitution. There are few things that have been so misrepresented to Americans throughout history. Why did they do this? Was it purely a racist issue? Did they believe that you couldn't count slaves as full human beings because of their race? Of course some did, but is that why it was in the Constitution? No.
The arguments over how to count representatives to the Congressional House Districts seemed to be at the top of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention agenda that hot summer of 1787. The disagreements often only masked an even more important but unspoken, difference over slavery between members from the Northern and the Southern sections. Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas had enough population, at the time, to block antislavery legislation under the new proposed House of Representatives structure, but already ominous trends seemed to put the South on a path of permanent minority status. First the precedents being set that summer in the Northwest Ordinance suggested that slavery would never cross the Ohio River. More important, the competition posed by slave labor to free labor, combined with the large plantations guaranteed by the custom of the eldest son inheriting the land pushing the younger sons out to find their own way, made a surety that immigration to Southern states would consistently fall behind that of the North. Fewer immigrants meant fewer Congressional Representatives, so the House was in jeopardy in the foreseeable future. To ensure a continued strong presence in the House, Southern delegates proposed to count slaves for the purpose of representation -a suggestion that outraged antislavery New Englanders, who wanted only to count slaves toward national taxes levied on the states by the new government. Indians would not count toward representation or taxation.
On June 11, 1787, Pennsylvanian James Wilson who personally opposed slavery, introduced a compromise in which, for purposes of establishing apportionment and for taxation, a slave would be counted as three fifths of a free inhabitant. The taxation aspect was never invoked; the new Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, had a different plan in place, so it became a moot point of the compromise, essentially giving the South an inflated count in the House at no cost. Wilson's phrase referred to "free inhabitants" and all other person's not comprehended in the foregoing description, and therefore "slavery" does not appear in this founding document.
The disturbing designation of a human as only three-fifths of the value of another aside, the South gained a substantial advantage through the agreement. Based on the percentage of voting power by the five major slave states, Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, and the two Carolinas, the differential appeared as follows: 1. under the one state on vote proposal, 38%. 2. Counting all inhabitants, except Indians, 50%.
3. Counting only free inhabitants, 41%. 4. Using the eventual 3/5th compromise numbers 47%.
Delegates to the Constitutional Convention thus arrived at the point they all knew would come. Americans had twice before skirted with the issue of slavery or avoided dealing with it. In 1619, when black slaves were first unloaded off ships, colonialists had the opportunity and responsibly to insist on their emancipation, immediately and unconditionally, yet they did not. Then again, in 1776, when Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence and included the indictment of Great Britain's imposition of slavery on the colonies, pressure from South Carolina and other Southern States forced him to strike it from the final version. Now, in 1787, the young Republic had a third opportunity, perhaps the last without bloodshed, to deal with slavery. Yet, its delegates did not.
Several examples can be cited to suggest that many of the delegates thought that slavery was already headed for extinction. In 1776 the Continental Congress had reiterated a prohibition in the non importation agreement against the importation of African slaves, despite repealing the rest. During the war, various proposals were submitted to the Congress to offer freedom after the conflict to slaves who fought for the Revolution. Southern colonies blocked these. After the war, several Northern states, including New Hampshire (1779), Pennsylvania (1780), Massachusetts (1783), Rhode Island (1784), all expressly forbade slavery in their Constitutions, adopted immediate or gradual emancipation plans, or had courts declare slavery unconstitutional. Most encouraging to anti-slave forces, however, in 1782 Virginia passed a law allowing slave owners discretion on freeing their slaves.
Jefferson's own "Notes on the State of Virginia" imagined a time after 1800 when all slaves would be free, and Madison labeled proslavery arguments in 1790 "shamefully indecent," calling slavery a "deep-rooted abuse." Founders such as Hamilton, who helped start the New York Manumission society, and had established their antislavery credentials. Perhaps the most radical, and surprising, was Washington, who, alone among the southern Founders, projected an America that included both Indians and freed slaves as citizens in a condition of relative equality. He even established funds to support the children of his wife's slaves after her death and , in his last will and testament, freed his own slaves.
Slavery was also an economic drain on the South, the main crop of tobacco was stripping the land of it's fertility. Slavery would have died out for purely economic reasons if not for the invention of the Cotton Gin by Eli Whitney later on creating a huge economic boom in the South and global demand for their cotton, energizing slavery and putting us on a collision course for the Civil War.
The compromise over slavery did not come without a fight. Gouverneur Morris, one of the most outspoken critics of slavery at the convention, attacked Wilson's fractional formula and asked of the slaves counted under the three-fifths rule, "Are they admitted as Citizens? Then why are they not admitted on an equality with White Citizens? Are they admitted property? Then why is not other property admitted to the computation?" Massachusetts' Elbridge Gerry echoed this line of thinking, sarcastically asking why New Englanders would not be allowed to count their cattle if Georgians could count their slaves.
Morris and others, including Jefferson, recognized that slavery promised to inject itself into every aspect of American life. Consider "comity," the principle that one state accepts the privileges and immunities of other states to encourage free travel and commerce between them. Article IV required states to give "full faith and credit" to laws and judicial decision of other states. Fugitives from justice were to returned for trail to the state of the crime, for example. Almost immediately, conflicts arose when slaves escaped to northern states, which then refused to oblige southern requests for their return. Northern free blacks working in the merchant marine found themselves unable to disembark from their ships in southern ports for fear of enslavement, regardless of their legal status. Seven Southern coastal states actually imprisoned free black sailors upon their arrival in port. At the time, however, the likelihood that the southerners would cause the convention to collapse meant that the delegates had to adopt the three-fifths provision and deal with the consequences later. Realistically, it was the best they could do, although it would take seventy-eight years, a civil war, and three constitutional amendments to reverse the three-fifths compromise.
Modern historians have leaped to criticize the convention's decision, and one could certainly apply the colloquial definition of a compromise as; doing less than what you know is right. Historian Joseph Ellis noted that "the distinguishing feature of the Constitution when it came to slavery was its evasiveness." But let's be blunt: to have pressed the slavery issue in 1776 would have killed the Revolution, and to have pressed it in 1787 would have aborted the nation. When the ink dried on the final drafts, the participants had managed to agree on most of the important issues, and where they disagreed, they had kept those divisions from distracting them from the task at hand. More important, the final document indeed represented all: "In 560 roll-calls, no state was always on the losing side, and each at times was part of the winning coalition." The framers were highly focused only on Republic building, acting on the assumption that the Union was the highest good, and that ultimately all problems, including slavery, would be resolved if they could only keep the country together long enough.
From the onset, the proceedings had perched perilously on the verge of collapse, making the final document truly a miracle. When the convention ended, a woman buttonholed Benjamin Franklin and asked him what kind of government the nation had. "A Republic, madam, If you can keep it." Franklin replied.
The arguments over how to count representatives to the Congressional House Districts seemed to be at the top of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention agenda that hot summer of 1787. The disagreements often only masked an even more important but unspoken, difference over slavery between members from the Northern and the Southern sections. Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas had enough population, at the time, to block antislavery legislation under the new proposed House of Representatives structure, but already ominous trends seemed to put the South on a path of permanent minority status. First the precedents being set that summer in the Northwest Ordinance suggested that slavery would never cross the Ohio River. More important, the competition posed by slave labor to free labor, combined with the large plantations guaranteed by the custom of the eldest son inheriting the land pushing the younger sons out to find their own way, made a surety that immigration to Southern states would consistently fall behind that of the North. Fewer immigrants meant fewer Congressional Representatives, so the House was in jeopardy in the foreseeable future. To ensure a continued strong presence in the House, Southern delegates proposed to count slaves for the purpose of representation -a suggestion that outraged antislavery New Englanders, who wanted only to count slaves toward national taxes levied on the states by the new government. Indians would not count toward representation or taxation.
On June 11, 1787, Pennsylvanian James Wilson who personally opposed slavery, introduced a compromise in which, for purposes of establishing apportionment and for taxation, a slave would be counted as three fifths of a free inhabitant. The taxation aspect was never invoked; the new Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, had a different plan in place, so it became a moot point of the compromise, essentially giving the South an inflated count in the House at no cost. Wilson's phrase referred to "free inhabitants" and all other person's not comprehended in the foregoing description, and therefore "slavery" does not appear in this founding document.
The disturbing designation of a human as only three-fifths of the value of another aside, the South gained a substantial advantage through the agreement. Based on the percentage of voting power by the five major slave states, Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, and the two Carolinas, the differential appeared as follows: 1. under the one state on vote proposal, 38%. 2. Counting all inhabitants, except Indians, 50%.
3. Counting only free inhabitants, 41%. 4. Using the eventual 3/5th compromise numbers 47%.
Delegates to the Constitutional Convention thus arrived at the point they all knew would come. Americans had twice before skirted with the issue of slavery or avoided dealing with it. In 1619, when black slaves were first unloaded off ships, colonialists had the opportunity and responsibly to insist on their emancipation, immediately and unconditionally, yet they did not. Then again, in 1776, when Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence and included the indictment of Great Britain's imposition of slavery on the colonies, pressure from South Carolina and other Southern States forced him to strike it from the final version. Now, in 1787, the young Republic had a third opportunity, perhaps the last without bloodshed, to deal with slavery. Yet, its delegates did not.
Several examples can be cited to suggest that many of the delegates thought that slavery was already headed for extinction. In 1776 the Continental Congress had reiterated a prohibition in the non importation agreement against the importation of African slaves, despite repealing the rest. During the war, various proposals were submitted to the Congress to offer freedom after the conflict to slaves who fought for the Revolution. Southern colonies blocked these. After the war, several Northern states, including New Hampshire (1779), Pennsylvania (1780), Massachusetts (1783), Rhode Island (1784), all expressly forbade slavery in their Constitutions, adopted immediate or gradual emancipation plans, or had courts declare slavery unconstitutional. Most encouraging to anti-slave forces, however, in 1782 Virginia passed a law allowing slave owners discretion on freeing their slaves.
Jefferson's own "Notes on the State of Virginia" imagined a time after 1800 when all slaves would be free, and Madison labeled proslavery arguments in 1790 "shamefully indecent," calling slavery a "deep-rooted abuse." Founders such as Hamilton, who helped start the New York Manumission society, and had established their antislavery credentials. Perhaps the most radical, and surprising, was Washington, who, alone among the southern Founders, projected an America that included both Indians and freed slaves as citizens in a condition of relative equality. He even established funds to support the children of his wife's slaves after her death and , in his last will and testament, freed his own slaves.
Slavery was also an economic drain on the South, the main crop of tobacco was stripping the land of it's fertility. Slavery would have died out for purely economic reasons if not for the invention of the Cotton Gin by Eli Whitney later on creating a huge economic boom in the South and global demand for their cotton, energizing slavery and putting us on a collision course for the Civil War.
The compromise over slavery did not come without a fight. Gouverneur Morris, one of the most outspoken critics of slavery at the convention, attacked Wilson's fractional formula and asked of the slaves counted under the three-fifths rule, "Are they admitted as Citizens? Then why are they not admitted on an equality with White Citizens? Are they admitted property? Then why is not other property admitted to the computation?" Massachusetts' Elbridge Gerry echoed this line of thinking, sarcastically asking why New Englanders would not be allowed to count their cattle if Georgians could count their slaves.
Morris and others, including Jefferson, recognized that slavery promised to inject itself into every aspect of American life. Consider "comity," the principle that one state accepts the privileges and immunities of other states to encourage free travel and commerce between them. Article IV required states to give "full faith and credit" to laws and judicial decision of other states. Fugitives from justice were to returned for trail to the state of the crime, for example. Almost immediately, conflicts arose when slaves escaped to northern states, which then refused to oblige southern requests for their return. Northern free blacks working in the merchant marine found themselves unable to disembark from their ships in southern ports for fear of enslavement, regardless of their legal status. Seven Southern coastal states actually imprisoned free black sailors upon their arrival in port. At the time, however, the likelihood that the southerners would cause the convention to collapse meant that the delegates had to adopt the three-fifths provision and deal with the consequences later. Realistically, it was the best they could do, although it would take seventy-eight years, a civil war, and three constitutional amendments to reverse the three-fifths compromise.
Modern historians have leaped to criticize the convention's decision, and one could certainly apply the colloquial definition of a compromise as; doing less than what you know is right. Historian Joseph Ellis noted that "the distinguishing feature of the Constitution when it came to slavery was its evasiveness." But let's be blunt: to have pressed the slavery issue in 1776 would have killed the Revolution, and to have pressed it in 1787 would have aborted the nation. When the ink dried on the final drafts, the participants had managed to agree on most of the important issues, and where they disagreed, they had kept those divisions from distracting them from the task at hand. More important, the final document indeed represented all: "In 560 roll-calls, no state was always on the losing side, and each at times was part of the winning coalition." The framers were highly focused only on Republic building, acting on the assumption that the Union was the highest good, and that ultimately all problems, including slavery, would be resolved if they could only keep the country together long enough.
From the onset, the proceedings had perched perilously on the verge of collapse, making the final document truly a miracle. When the convention ended, a woman buttonholed Benjamin Franklin and asked him what kind of government the nation had. "A Republic, madam, If you can keep it." Franklin replied.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
If Passion Is Possible Why Settle For Less?
The secret ingredient in any venture in life is passion. Passion is a game changer, if the Dream is Big enough the facts don't matter. If you have a passion for something then you will see magic happen, not only will you find a way to see your dreams come true, others will follow. People follow passion. We see so little of it around us, it is a natural attraction. It draws positive people to you like moths to flame.
We only are given one chance to live our lives, what are you doing with yours? Are you going through the motions in autopilot where you go to work, go home, go to work, go work, home, work, home without any real punctuation marks to make it something other than a rut? Have you ever driven through a traffic light and wondered if it was red or not? Does one day run into another in seamless sameness?
Mark Twain once said, "Most men die at 27, we just bury them at 72."
Henry David Thoreau said, "Most men live lives of quite desperation and go to their graves with their song still in them."
How sad is that,we know instinctively that those comments are true, don't we?
Why is this? What happens to the dreams inside we bring out of childhood? How do we start going through the motions of our lives and quit actually living them? I think it starts when we decide to start settling for safety and security instead of chasing our dreams. I believe that is why we see so many people taking anti-depressants and encumbered with addictions of all sorts. We are built to dream. God created us with dreams inside and we only function correctly when we are chasing them. God said, "Without a vision, my people perish." The sad thing is when you give up passion for security you have traded for a mirage.
Life is far too short to live it without a passion in your life. For me, I want to have a passion in everything I do. If it deserves my time and attention, doesn't it deserve my passion? I don't care if it is my marriage, my children, career related, spiritual faith, patriotism, hobbies, whatever, if it is worth your time, it is worth passion. If passion is one of the options, it should be the only acceptable one. I refuse to go through life timid or bored.
A friend and mentor of mine, Rick Setzer, taught a question we should always ask ourselves, especially if we are starting to get stale in our vision. "Are you working your business or are you chasing your dream?" There is magic in the latter.
If you have a true passion, your are contagious. I once had a wonderful lesson in passion and its effect on others. My wife had read about a orchid nursery in Indianapolis that was one of the largest in America. She wanted to go buy orchids for all the ladies in our family for Christmas. I went with her and we were blessed with this amazing older gentleman as our guide and salesman. He looked like he had just been found on some deserted island, long gray hair and beard, skinny and gaunt, probably in his 70s, but had a twinkle in his eyes that captured you. He was a scientist who had traveled the world's jungles searching for new species of orchids most of his life. This was his collection of over 5,000 species he had found. He taught us all about them with a passion that sucked you into his world, so much so that I ended up raising orchids for the next ten years. I had never had a thought of them before walking in, but his passion was contagious. I will never forget that powerful lesson.
So, are you building your business, or our you chasing your dreams? Are you making a living or our you making a life? It is up to you, it is simply finding your passion and never working another day in your life!
We only are given one chance to live our lives, what are you doing with yours? Are you going through the motions in autopilot where you go to work, go home, go to work, go work, home, work, home without any real punctuation marks to make it something other than a rut? Have you ever driven through a traffic light and wondered if it was red or not? Does one day run into another in seamless sameness?
Mark Twain once said, "Most men die at 27, we just bury them at 72."
Henry David Thoreau said, "Most men live lives of quite desperation and go to their graves with their song still in them."
How sad is that,we know instinctively that those comments are true, don't we?
Why is this? What happens to the dreams inside we bring out of childhood? How do we start going through the motions of our lives and quit actually living them? I think it starts when we decide to start settling for safety and security instead of chasing our dreams. I believe that is why we see so many people taking anti-depressants and encumbered with addictions of all sorts. We are built to dream. God created us with dreams inside and we only function correctly when we are chasing them. God said, "Without a vision, my people perish." The sad thing is when you give up passion for security you have traded for a mirage.
Life is far too short to live it without a passion in your life. For me, I want to have a passion in everything I do. If it deserves my time and attention, doesn't it deserve my passion? I don't care if it is my marriage, my children, career related, spiritual faith, patriotism, hobbies, whatever, if it is worth your time, it is worth passion. If passion is one of the options, it should be the only acceptable one. I refuse to go through life timid or bored.
A friend and mentor of mine, Rick Setzer, taught a question we should always ask ourselves, especially if we are starting to get stale in our vision. "Are you working your business or are you chasing your dream?" There is magic in the latter.
If you have a true passion, your are contagious. I once had a wonderful lesson in passion and its effect on others. My wife had read about a orchid nursery in Indianapolis that was one of the largest in America. She wanted to go buy orchids for all the ladies in our family for Christmas. I went with her and we were blessed with this amazing older gentleman as our guide and salesman. He looked like he had just been found on some deserted island, long gray hair and beard, skinny and gaunt, probably in his 70s, but had a twinkle in his eyes that captured you. He was a scientist who had traveled the world's jungles searching for new species of orchids most of his life. This was his collection of over 5,000 species he had found. He taught us all about them with a passion that sucked you into his world, so much so that I ended up raising orchids for the next ten years. I had never had a thought of them before walking in, but his passion was contagious. I will never forget that powerful lesson.
So, are you building your business, or our you chasing your dreams? Are you making a living or our you making a life? It is up to you, it is simply finding your passion and never working another day in your life!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
