Muslims Oppose Anti-Sharia Laws

Dave Agema, a state lawmaker, wants Michigan to join the trend of states banning "foreign laws," but Muslim activists say the effort is a thinly veiled attack on Islam.

Critics fear Sharia could supersede civil law and have an impact on divorce and child custody cases, and similar legislation has been introduced in 25 states.

"Agema … is a reflection of a segment of the GOP that is openly xenophobic and Islamophobic," said Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Michigan chapter

More Here

More arguments here by a Democrat and the NAACP

-------------------------
To me a law like this is no more anti-Islamic than the laws of divorce is anti-Catholic since they do not recognize divorce in their religion or the laws on bigamy is being anti-Mormon.

In fact laws such as these could be interpreted as a pro-life stance that every American should support. By pro-life I mean anti-honor killing as practiced by some Muslim believers.

One more thought; if being anti-sharia is a segment of the GOP being islamphobic as the Dir. of CAIR has explicitly declared then he must also implicitly be declaring that a segment of the Demoocrats are pro-sharia law.  I wonder how many Democrats will openly admit to that?

what say you?

A Lesson in Irresponsible Economic Policies or "There is No Such Thing as a Free Lunch"

Our Future?

I have only two questions. 1. How long will it be before your town or State follows suit? 2. When will the people wake up and demand that our representatives in government act in a responsible manner by treating their constituents as adults who are capable of ruling their own lives as the founding fathers intended?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Poverty, Crime, Welfare and Minimum wages, Is there a Correlation?

This man believes that there is.




And then there are the words of wisdom from the man who wrote these words. Are they the words of a man who would approve of a socialistic form of a way of life as so many are clamoring for?

"For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen?

On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners.

St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.

Excuse me, Messrs. the Public, if upon this interesting subject, I put you to the trouble of reading a little of my nonsense. I am sure I have lately read a great deal of yours; and therefore from you (at least from those of you who are writers) I deserve a little indulgence."

I am, your’s,
Ben Franklin

And we must not forget the words of Raul Castro;
"Cuba must stop being the only country in the world where it is not necessary to work.”

Did Lincoln Free the Slaves or Did Winning the War Just Lead Us to that Perception?

“Grandpa, I’ve been doing some research in regards to the Constitution and I’ve come up with some facts that kind of puzzles me. At the time of its passage there was no left or right when it came to the interpretation of the Constitution. Everyone interpreted it as being clearly written and everyone saw it from the view of strict construction.

This interpretation lasted up and past the War between the States.  Presidents Lincoln, a Republican, and President Johnson, a Democrat, as well as President Buchanan were united in this interpretation. They were also united in the fact that secession was illegal and that the southern states were still members of the United States, not States separated from the union thus allowed to form their own confederation. This would justify teaching that it was a civil war. Yet one thing bothers me.

There are many that say that Lincoln freed the slaves by executive order with the Emancipation Proclamation. If the southern States were not legally separated but still members of the United States then how could Lincoln, by executive order give freedom to the slaves? That would appear as an abuse of the executive branch of the federal government by the fact he blatantly violated the terms of the Constitution. And if so, a very impeachable act of President Lincoln.

The only possible ways that Lincoln could legally free the slaves would be, in my opinion, is under one of these circumstances.
1. the southern States were actually legally separated from the United States thus allowing Lincoln to treat them as a separate nation with whom the United States was at war with. If so then the Constitution would no longer apply to these States. By this understanding the war could no longer be classified as a civil war but as a war between two nations, both made up of a confederation of States. It would just be defined as a war between the States because by the strict constructionists view each of the States were sovereign States. The only problem with this is the fact that the federal government never recognized the Confederacy as an independent sovereign State.
2. One other way would be that it was the understanding up through that time that the President of the United States has dictatorial powers during times of war. This would declare that the President was no longer bound by the constitutional limits placed upon the federal government as a strict constructionist would interpret it. The problem with this is the fact that it goes against the whole concept of the meaning of a constitutional government.
3. The southern States were no longer recognized as being sovereign States once they had seceded thus were subject to the rule of the federal government in the same manner as any other territory owned by the United States. The problem with this is the fact that it goes against the whole concept of the meaning of being a sovereign state in the first place.

Grandpa, one more thing we must remember in regards to this act. The importance of it is dependent upon the fact that it was the north who won the war and not the south. If the south had won, that speech would have no meaning in regards to the freedom of the slaves. It probably would be looked upon as the rantings of a delusional man unfit to be President of these United States. And along this line of thought we'd have to say that John Wilkes Booth's place in history would be seen in an entirely different light. In fact, our whole perception of that time as we know it today is dependent upon the fact that the United States won the war. This includes some people's perception of the cause of the war.

This simple fact along with other things that I have learned by researching the issue has made me question the truthfulness of history as being taught in school. History, as taught, appears to be very emotionally biased towards the winner of the war and prejudiced against the loser. This, alone, scares me in regards to our educational system.

If it does nothing else, grandpa, it has instilled in me one fact that you have preached from day one, the importance of depending upon ourselves rather then depending upon others to provide for our needs. It is apparent to me now that this concept also applies to the education of the mind. For what others teach us will ultimately be in accordance to their own biases and prejudices.

My only question is, What gave the federal government the right to force the confederate States to remain in the union instead of acknowledging their right to secede from the union?

Am I making any kind of sense, grandpa, or are my words the words of a silly fool?”

Grandpa just grinned, reached out and ruffled my hair with that big calloused hand of his and replied, “I'll let you know after you tell me what else you have found out from that research of yours.”

Then he just put his arm around me and began leading me towards the house saying, “But, right now, let's you and me go in and partake of the fine vittles that your grandma has cooked up for us. I can smell how good it is going to taste all the way out here and it has made me hungry as a mama bear that has just woke up from a long winter's nap.”

Problems with commenting on Blogger Sites

If you  are having problems commenting on sites using Blogger, don't feel alone.  there are many of us having the same problem.  I came across two solutions to this problem.
1. If you are using the Internet Explorer browser try using one of the others available.  I know that Firefox is one browser that solves this problem for me.

2. When you sign in do not check the box to remain signed in. That seems to solve the problem also even though it creates an hassle of the need to sign in every time.

If anyone comes across a better solution I think everyone would appreciate hearing of it. Leave your solution in comments and I will add it to the post for others to use also.

h/t to Gorges Grouse for the solutions here.

UPDATE:
One of my valued commenters said that using the "name/url" option in the select profile menu box also works.  There may be one little problem with this option tho.  For you Blog owners, check out the spam section of your blog.  There may be comments there from those using this option.

h/t to Ralph over at "Mindless Ramblings" for this solution to the problem.

Ok, Men, That Microwave Can Do More Than Just Reheat Coffee

:Man's Best Friend in Kitchen?

1. Decrystallizing Honey
Honey that has solidified can be brought back to liquid life by uncovering the jar and heating on medium power for 30 seconds to 1 minute.

2. Soften Brown Sugar

Place sugar in a microwave-safe bowl and sprinkle with 1 teaspoon water (regardless of the quantity of sugar). Cover and microwave on low (power level 3) in 1-minute intervals, tossing in between, until soft, 4 to 5 minutes

3. Cook Corn on the Cob

Place unshucked corn on a microwave-safe plate. Microwave on high (power level 10) for 6minutes. Let stand for 5 minutes. Carefully remove the husks and silk.

4. Bake a Potato
Rub a potato with olive oil and place on a microwave-safe plate. Microwave, uncovered, on high (power level 10) until tender and easily pierced with a paring knife, 12 to 14 minutes.

5. Make Applesauce
In a microwave-safe bowl, combine 1 pound peeled and diced apples (Macintosh, Fuji, or Gala are best) with ¼ cup water, 2 teaspoons sugar, and ⅛ teaspoon cinnamon. Cover and microwave on high (power level 10) until the apples are tender, 8 to 10 minutes. Mash with a fork or potato masher.

6. Cook Rice
In a microwave-safe baking dish or medium bowl, combine 1 cup long-grain white rice, 2 cups water, and ½ teaspoon salt. Microwave, uncovered, on high (power level 10) until the rice is tender and the liquid is absorbed, 15 to 18 minutes.

7. Cook Bacon
Sandwich 6 slices of bacon between 2 double layers of paper towels. Place on a microwave-safe plate. Microwave on high (power level 10)until cooked through, 4 to 5 minutes.

8. Warm Tortillas
Wrap tortillas in a damp paper towel. Microwave on high (power level 10) for 40 seconds to 1 minute.

9. Getting More Juice From Citrus Fruits
A lemon or lime taken straight from the refrigerator is harder to juice than one left at room temperature or warmed slightly. To get the most juice, microwave citrus fruits for 20 seconds before squeezing.

10. Proofing Yeast Doughs
Yeast doughs that normally take an hour or more to rise at room temperature can be proofed in the microwave in about 15 minutes. Place the dough in a very large bowl and cover with plastic. Place an 8-ounce cup of water in the back of the microwave with the bowl of dough in the center, and set the power as low as possible (10 percent power). Heat for 3 minutes, then let the dough rest in the microwave for 3 minutes. Heat for 3 minutes longer, then let rest for 6 minutes. The dough will double in bulk.

11. Disinfecting and Deodorizing Sponges
Don't throw out the kitchen sponge that smells like last night's salmon. Soak it in water spiked with white vinegar or lemon juice, then heat it on high for 1 minute. (Use an oven mitt to remove it.) This will also disinfect any sponges you used to wipe up the juices from a raw chicken.

12. Steam Clean the Microwave
Take three or four sheets of paper towels and get them wet. Add a drop of soap. Stick in microwave and turn on for one minute. Leave door closed for five minutes. Allow the steam to loosen the stuck food particles and then just wipe clean.

Your Tax Dollar Hard at Work (Part II)

We speak of that new millionaire who is still using food stamps but we can't blame him for it. He is using them in accordance to the laws in regards to food stamps. We also cannot blame the State of Michigan either for the State is only following the guidelines of the federal government out of whose treasury the money comes for food stamps.

You and I may consider what he is doing as being unethical and the man is without scruples for abusing the system outside of its intent and purpose. But if we acknowledge that laws can influence the way a man thinks and feels then we must ask ourselves one question. Is it just man who is at fault or is it the law itself that can be blamed for his feelings?

One more thought that people should consider. This man was using food stamps prior to winning the lottery. That means he must have had enough money to buy lottery tickets with. If the man was so needy and was getting welfare to provide for his needs then where did he get the extra money necessary to buy those tickets?  The only answer that I can come up with is that he used your tax dollars to buy the tickets.

I have to admit I still remember a time when people felt shame for taking a government handout of any kind. But then again there was a time when a poor person was not looked upon as being someone deserving of pity either nor did that person appreciate being shown pity. Those were the times when a man knew that if he was to make it in this world he had only himself to depend upon. Those were the times when self-respect was more important than having a dollar in your pocket.

We are a nation of laws or at least we promote ourselves as this kind of nation to the world. It is by laws that allow our government to serve the people or at least we promote that principle of government. Laws are enacted so as to benefit the people or at least we are taught that in our schools. There is one thing about laws that isn't mentioned though.

Laws can also be taken advantaged of for the intent and purpose of self-gain. And it doesn't matter what type of laws we speak of whether they be criminal laws or civil laws. In criminal law this is recognized by the axiom of “Tis better that one hundred guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man.”  Do we wish to use that same form of axiom in regards to those laws dealing with the financial welfare of individuals? Is it better to allow one hundred persons to take advantage of these programs for self-gain than to deny it to one person of need?

On top of people undeservedly taking advantage of these programs we must also consider one more factor. That factor being the actual fraudulent claims that by the very nature of the programs will result within a program like this. Is it better to allow one hundred fraudulent claims than to deny it of one person in need? Here is more of an example of fraud or people taking advantage of the genorosity of the tax payer. 200 ineligible dependents

As those who have been following me on this blog probably already know my answer is no. and in my opinion there is only two ways that the government can deal with the financial welfare of individuals that cannot be taken advantage of, legally or illegally. The government can expand the program so as to allow everyone to participate in that program without any bias or prejudice. The other way is for the government to eliminate the program all together. You have two guesses as to which one I’d prefer.

Now, there will be some who will call me hard-hearted because of this. They will tell you I have no compassion. If that be their feelings about me then so be it. But if I am to be accused of this it will be only at the expense of those towards whom I am soft-hearted. If I am to be accused of this then it will only be at the expense of those who I feel deserve greater respect then what is being shown to them.

Where do my thoughts lie? They lie in the idea of the 48% who display their ethics by working 1/3 of every day or more away from their families so that some may spend the whole day with their families, the taxpayer. My feelings lie in the knowledge that the government demands that the taxpayer has to place the needs of strangers above the needs of his own family. My feelings and thoughts lie in the fact that these men must provide the means to other so that they can fulfill their dreams before he is allowed to fulfill his own and those of his own family.  Is that what the American Dream is all about?

What say you? Are my thoughts and feelings misplaced?

Your Tax Dollar Hard at Work

Man wins two million dollars and still buys his food with food stamps.  Is it any wonder that our governments have so much debt?  The thing about it is that he feels no guilt about using them. How many others hold to these same feelings?  Here is a good example of how programs like this affect people.  Congratulations, taxpayers.  Here is how your compassion is received and returned.

Here is why Raul Castro said, "Cuba must stop being the only country in the world where it is not necessary to work.”

 Million dollar food stamps

The End Results of a Constitution Seen as a "Living Document" not as a "Contract"

Ok, folks, this is the kind of Supreme court rulings you can expect to get handed down when you interpret the Constitution in the manner of it being a “living document” instead of it being interpreted in the manner of a “contract”. It is just this type of flexibility that needs to be prevented. It was just this type of government abuse of power that is the reason for constitutional law.

It is just this type of rulings that justifies the accusation that government is abusing the power given to them by the people. So, all of you who thinks that our way of life as given to us by the founding fathers has failed to live up to its promises take a good clear look at the future you are promising the people. Take a good look and see a future that has already failed before you have implemented it completely.

Take a good look at what your government expects of you, the people. It expects that you submit unto its power without the right to protect the privacy of your home now. This is your change you promised. This what we have to hope for in the future. Justify it if you can.

The future you promised is nothing but taking us back to the past prior to the founding fathers when the government had the right to invade your home and do whatever it wanted. This is what you get when you no longer adhere to the principles of individual rights but promote the idea of class rights. Do rulings like this declare that the government is a servant of the people or is it declaring that government is the Master?

And if you look into my past articles you will see many warnings about what can result from the way you interpret life, government, and the constitution. And know this, if we the people submit to rulings such as this I will predict that it will only go downhill from here in regards to individual rights if they are not already been denied to the people.

As for their excuse of the idea that to submit unto the government's power in order to avoid violence is just that, it is just an excuse to grab even greater power. Violence would have been avoided if the agents of the government had acted in accordance to the law. All this ruling did was to deny an individual the right of self-defense. If a man no longer has the right to protect the security of his home then what does he have the right to protect?

Now, what am I speaking of? Of what am I ranting about? It is this.  Read and weep, my friends.  I can't think of anything more shameful than what I have read here.  Liberty has just been lost as it never existed for the people.  I hope you can enjoy your victory my liberal friends.
Court: No right to resist an illegal act of a government agent

a h/t to the Libertarian Patriot

Liberalism, a Look at It as being in the Mode of the Enlightenment of the Founding Fathers

I have just spent some time viewing Dr. Hicks teachings of philosophy and what I have learned from these lectures was probably the most enlightening lectures that I have ever heard. The following video is but the first of this series of lectures. It is a series of lectures explaining the philosophy of Post- modernism. The most significant understanding I got from these lectures is the fact I hear these same arguments used and see them being utilized in the politics of today's world.

The one significant conclusion that I have come to is the idea of what a liberal sees himself as being identified and what a conservative sees himself as being identified. Both sees themselves in the mode of the founding fathers thus see the opposition in light of this perception of themselves. But in order to understand this we must first identify the fact that we live in the age of the philosophy of modernism or as it is more commonly thought of as living in a modern world as ushered in by the enlightenment era or the age of reason. And our nation is a foundational example of this new train of thought.

This then would identify the time prior to this age as the age of premodernism or the premodern world with any age after this as being the age of post-modernism or the post-modern world. The liberal sees himself in the mode of the founding fathers who were the innovators of the modern world movement in that the liberal today is the innovators of the post- modern movement. This contrast with the conservative who is attempting to conserve the modern world movement as the founding fathers ushered in.

In closing I can only say that I suggest that you should sit thru the whole series of videos and see how his lectures are being played out in this modern world and understand from a philosophical point of view what the conflicts of political viewpoints are. If you listen closely you'll hear the arguments of liberalism as they now are presented as well as being instituted in this society.

And you will understand why the liberal mindset is so critical of the way of life we have in this nation also. You will also understand how Marxism plays a part in this mindframe as well. I believe you will find that the time spent watching as well as listening to these lectures will be time well worth it.  I know I did. What say you?

The rest of the lectures can be found here, Dr. Hicks

A New Look At the Success of Socialism

The Basic Theory behind Socialism

The Right of a job as promised by Socialism
Only a Capitalist faces layoffs

No exploitation of the worker as promised by Socialism
Only a Capitalist hires a man to work

All Property is the Property of the Community as promised by Socialism
Only a Capitalist owns private property









In closing I can only say that I prefer the promise of failure that is inherent in the Capitalistic system over the promises of success that is promoted by the Socialistic system.

What say you?

UPDATE:
At the suggestion of one of my valued commenters I will change the wording of the preference that I made above to;

In closing I can only say that I prefer the guarantee of failure to some persons that is inherent in the Capitalistic system over the promises of success to all persons by the Socialistic system. The only thing that both systems possess in common are politicians who will lie to the people.

Here is a Challenge, A Challenge That No Liberal Can Afford to Turn Down

Click on the Picture above

So, some politicians advocate taxing the rich more than they are already taxed. Well, the hilarious part of this is the fact that nobody pays taxes willingly and that includes liberals. Myself, I would have to question the sanity of anyone who would say that they pay their taxes willingly. And if you raise the rate of taxation on some people are they going to pay their taxes more or less willingly than they do now? Let's see how willingly the rich pays their taxes at the rate now. How many of them are avowed liberals? Click on the picture for the link.

And we must admit one more thing. These persons are but a few of the rich who could afford to pay their taxes but didn't. And we can say that they only paid their taxes because they got caught not paying them. There is no doubt in my mind that there are many more persons such as these who are just as guilty of tax evasion but just have not been caught for some reason or another. I would further propose that tax evasion occurs not only in the class of the rich but that it occurs in every class of taxpayers.

As anyone who lives by a budget knows, taxes is an expense item just as any other expense item listed in that budget. Yet when it comes to paying that expense it has the lowest of priorities in our lives. We are far more willing to pay any other expense than we are of taxes. What is it about taxes that we give it our lowest priority?

I think that there are as many reasons for it as there are persons to take on this question and place an answer to it. My take on it can be summed up with three thoughts. Those thoughts being;

It is the one item in our personal budget that we do not perceive as a necessity to sustain our individual Life. It is the one item in our budget that we perceive as going against every principle of the meaning of personal Liberty. It is the one item in our budget that is an obstacle in our personal Pursuit of Happiness.

And I'll add one more reason. It is the one expense item that is imposed upon persons rather than accepted as a result of a agreement between two parties. It is the only expense item that a person could end up in prison for not paying even if it means not paying some other more important expense.

Here is my challenge to every liberal in the nation. If you honestly believe that raising taxes on the people is the right thing to do then do it.  If you honestly believe that raising taxes on the people is being fiscally responsible then do it. If you believe that raising taxes is abiding by the will of the people then do it.  But be willing to raise them high enough so that tax revenues equal expenses of the federal and state governments as well as the local governments each and every fiscal year. Then raise them a bit more to start paying off the debts of this nation.

Let's see just how fiscally responsible it turns out to be. There is no excuse for not doing it if you really believe that is the way to go. If you do not than everything you promise, every word you say is nothing but empty rhetoric and shows that your ideology has no merit.

UPDATE:
Just an added thought that I might pass along to all that I have challenged.  If it is additional revenue that is needed to balance the budget and to pay off the debt of the government then it must come from somewhere and someone.  As we see the rich will try to get out of paying it and unless we do raise taxes then the burden must fall upon our children.  Let's hear what they have to say about taking on the burden of the debt.



So, what say you, my liberal friends?  Do the youth of our nation give you even greater incentive to do what you think is right by raising the taxes on the people?

A h/t to "The Conservative Girl" for the video.

15 Reasons why Redistribution of Wealth is Poor Politics

Click on Picture for Story

Politicians are always citing statistics in regards to earned income gaps between the rich and the poor to justify their claim for the need for redistribution of wealth. That in itself should reveal the foolishness of the concept. A person's wealth is not determined by his earned income but by the accumulation of assets. And the question a person should be asking is how do you accumulate assets?

When you get right down to the nuts and bolts of the issue a person should realize that it isn't about how much money a person earns but how a person spends the money that he earns that is the biggest factor between the rich and the poor. A person can spend that earned income accumulating debts or he can spend his earned income accumulating assets. And how a person spends his earned income is a choice that only he can make. His own decisions in life will determine whether or not he ends up rich or poor.

If You're a Politician, Should Cheating End Your Career?

Click on Picture for the article

The above title is the title of an article I ran across today. Here is the link to the Article.  While the article gives no definite answer to the question the answer can be said as implicit. And based upon the premise the author seeks to use, the answer might be considered as obvious. But I'll ask the question using a different premise from the one used.

Marriage is a commitment and the basis of this commitment is found in the vows of that each person  have espoused to the other person. Taking a seat in government is another commitment that some of us will make in our lives. And before we are allowed to call ourselves a representative of the people or a representative of a State we must also take a vow of office.

The question then becomes;

Marriage is probably the most important commitment a person can make in their lives. If we think so little of the vows we have taken in regards to marriage then how can we be trusted to take the vows of the office of government seriously?

Ok, People, Some Reasons to Stop Eating

Click on Picture to see why

btw, after all these years I finally figured out how to use a picture as a link.

Who are the Real Servants of the People?

I need to say no more about my stance on government and who are the real servants of the people. This video says it all for me. To me, this video exemplifies the difference in the meaning behind "In God we Trust" and "In Government we Trust". For in this video we see how government shows its belief in the people instead of demanding that the people show its belief in government.

a h/t to the professor over at Legal Insurrection for this video and story.

Electronic Stores in Two States Offer Free Guns

"A chain of electronic stores in parts of the states of Idaho and Montana are offering free guns to first-time subscribers of satellite TV services.
The new promotions by combination RadioShack and Dish Network dealerships in western Montana and another in southwest Idaho have attracted crowds that range from the merely curious to the firearm-friendly."
More of the story here



Have you gotten your free gun yet, BB?

Business Run Like a Family, Living as a Business (Part 2)

As was said in the previous post, if a family ran their lives more like a business they would realize just how much like a family a business is already run. In order to do this we must look at the situation from a financial aspect of the family. The reason being is that is what business is all about, finances. And whether we like it or not financial affairs consume a major part of the lives of people and the better people manage their financial affairs the better their lives are.

So, what is it that business practices that would benefit a family? The very first thing to understand is that every business that became successful starts out with a business plan. And that business plan contains a goal that it strives to meet in order to consider it self successful. And within that plan is a time limit to meet that goal. And each and every person who is a part of that business has but a single purpose, to do their part in achieving that goal and when this is realized then it can be said that teamwork is in play.

Another aspect of a good business plan is that it must be examined periodically to ascertain if the business is on track for meeting the goal as set. If there be a problem then a solution must be found so that it does remain on track for that goal to be achieved.

And this would be the first thing a couple should do once they have decided to marry, create a family plan for their lives together. This has to be a plan that each must strive to achieve in the knowledge that it will only be achieved as a team. It is this that gives real meaning to the idea of love for each and every member of that family will be working to achieve that goal not only for themselves but doing it to help every other member of that family achieve that goal also.

For if they do not each person of that relationship will create one for themselves in expectation that the other will support that plan and in time those plans will end up in conflict. A good example of this are celebrity relationships.

People who create a good family plan leaves more than just an inheritance for their children. They leave a legacy for the world as well as for their children for they have passed down something to be remembered for generations to come. When it is time to look back on a life each person can do so in satisfaction of what they have achieved as a family.

The most important tool of business is called a “budget”. Without a budget a business has no idea of how it is doing. It is the backbone of every good business. And no man should even attempt to start up a business without a good understanding of the use of this tool. He must understand that a budget is more than an expense sheet. From this budget both a profit/loss sheet and a balance sheet can be made.

This is also true with a family plan. A good understanding of the many uses of a budget is an integral part of a good family plan. It should be the determinant of every penny spent whether on a short term basis or on a long term basis. For it is only in the spending of money that a person has control over. And this be true of both, business as well as a family.

It is not how much a person earns that is the determinant of whether a man is rich or poor. It is how a man spends his earnings that will determine it. Every man will spend his earnings with the intent of accumulating assets or he will spend his earnings with the intent of accumulating liabilities. Whether or not a person has a good understanding of a budget will be a big factor in determining which of the two categories in which a person will find himself. This be true of both, the man who is the head of a business or the man who is the head of a family.

One basic understanding in regards to a budget is the fact that earnings is the subjective as well as the limited aspect of a budget. And expenses should be ascertained as determined by the limitations of those earnings. If a person does not realize this as well as abide by this simple principle the success of a business and the well being of a family is jeopardized and each member of both institutions will have to suffer the consequences.

One last thought before I finish. There are four basic institutions in every society, the family, business, institutions of charity and government. Each and every one of these institutions need a budget. Each of these institutions need leaders who understand what a budget is and its purpose if they are to run that institution in a manner that is beneficial to the welfare of the effected members of that society.

Of those four institutions only one is a monopoly. Of those four institution only one has an effect on each and every person in society. Can we, the people, afford for that one institution to fail which is inevitable if its leaders do not have a good understanding of the purpose of a budget? Can we afford to elect men who spend money accumulating liabilities rather than accumulating assets?

Business Run Like a Family, Living as a Business

I heard a teacher in college once exclaim the following;

“If people ran their lives more like a business and businesses ran more like families everyone would have a better life.”

As a student I had no way to argue for it or against it so I just accepted that the teacher was a wiser person than I was. But now, I would dispute this. This statement is a statement only a politician who thinks he understands the discipline of sociology or only by a sociologist who wants to be a politician would make.

And I have just about as much respect for a sociologist as I do a politician. They both possess the same fault . They both believe that they can create the perfect society and each, with the help of the other, believe that this state of existence is an attainable goal.

And how do each try to create this perfect society? They believe that if the dominant sector of a society changes its attitude towards the subordinate sector of this society and treat them as equals then they will have a perfect society. And they see nothing wrong in the use of force to bring about this change in attitude.

And they justify this use of force by using the excuse they are just helping the less fortunate individuals of society. What they do not think about is that the word help does not permit the use of force to bring about change. Help, to be known as help must be voluntary and consensual on the part of both parties, the one being helped as well as the one doing the helping. Helping another by the means of force is the foundational basis of the meaning of being a slave.

For it can be said that by the use of force a slave is helping his Master. Yet, one thing must be noted, no one will ever use the word help in their description of a Master/slave relationship. In fact people will describe this relationship in a manner that not only decries the use of force but declares it an intolerable situation because of the use of force to not only create that relationship but also necessitates the use of force in order to maintain that relationship.

Now, granted, recognition of the difference between these two concepts does not change the behavior of either person but it does have an effect on the attitude of each person in regards to themselves and in regards to the other person. The reason being is that a person must do the same thing when aiding another person.

What neither realizes or fails to understand is the fact that in order to create this perfect society they must have absolute control over every aspect of the lives of every one of the members of this society. You can't explicitly declare that you are going to change the way a society is without implicitly declaring that you are seeking to change the individuals of that society. The same is true when a person is forced to do something for himself.

And the justification for this that there are people who knows what is the best thing to do for another person. In other words some people believe that they are much more wiser than others thus this justifies making decisions for them. This is treating people as if they are children rather than treating them as adults who have the ability to make their own decisions in life.

We make decisions for children because we know that they are not mature enough to make good decisions on their own. We also know that there must come a time to cut the umbilical cord and recognize that it is time they must be responsible for their own decisions even when we as parents feel that the decisions they make are not beneficial to them.

In both cases we have a “cannot” instead of a “can” situation. A slave cannot make his own decisions about his own life because he does not have the power and authority to do so. A child cannot make his own decisions because he does not have the sufficient maturity to do so. The big difference being is that enslavement is intended on being a permanent condition of life while childhood is known to be a temporary condition of life

That is the biggest problem with the equality principle. In order to achieve equality force must be applied. Equality can never be achieved on a voluntary and consensual basis even if it is accepted that people should be treated and behave as equals. The biggest reason being is that each of us has a different concept of the meaning of equality. The proof of this is seen in the fact of the many different segments of society demanding equal treatment from other segments and they demand this equal treatment without thought of the fact that it isn't being practiced within their own segment of society. How can you demand from others something that you do not practice yourself?

In closing I will only add this remark as a rebuttal to the observation stated in the beginning;

I would say that if families ran their lives more like a business they would realize just how much like a family a business is already run. This is one thing that a farmer's family learns first hand.

Republicans, Democrats, Independents; A Power Struggle?

Grandpa was sitting out on the back porch with a couple of his old cronies one Sunday afternoon taking in the first real warm days of the Spring season and talking politics, their favorite pastime. One of them was talking about how the two biggest political parties of this nation were not as big as one would believe from what was said about them. He stated that neither party was large enough to carry an election alone thus was dependent upon persuading the Independents of the nation to vote for them.

Upon getting an agreement from the others grandpa piped up with these remarks;

“You always hear about the Democrats, Republicans as well as the Independent voters in the polls. And when these polls add up their numbers they run pretty evenly so as to total all of the voters. Based on this source, Democrats are about 30%, Republicans number about 27% and Independents make up about 38%. this add up to around 95% of the registered voters.

Another source gives the numbers at 32.8% for Independents, 35.4% for Democrats and 31.8% for Republicans. This totals up to 100% of registered voters. Whether or not you consider either one of these source numbers as valid is up to you, the reader. You can probably go do your own research and come up with numbers that are biased in any direction you seek to use if you wanted to.

The primary point I want to make is the fact that regardless of your source the total will be very near or exactly 100% of the registered voters when you add up the numbers of the three political factions. And all of MSM will report any political news using these type of numbers including those news sources that you do not agree with regardless of your own political affiliation or self-designation.

While there may be a general agreement of what constitutes a Democrat or Republican we do need to understand the meaning of what constitutes an Independent. Based on this source an Independent is defined as;

“ An independent voter, often called an unaffiliated voter in the United States, is a voter that is not clearly aligned with a political party. An independent may be variously defined as a voter who votes for candidates and issues rather than on the basis of a political ideology or partisanship a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a political party; a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from election to election; or a voter who self-describes as an independent. “

This is a fine definition as far as I'm concerned and I'm guessing that you are probably thinking along the same lines when you hear stories about this voter. Some sources will even go as far as seek to determine towards which party the Independents lean as if to create a strong perception that we are a two party political system.

The problem being is the fact that in accordance to this source there are fifty-three national political parties. There are also many political parties that have been designated as regional parties also. Of these fifty-three national parties only four were founded before the twentieth century.

They be the Democratic party which was founded in 1828 and the Republican party which was founded in 1854. the other two parties are the Prohibition party founded in 1869 and the Socialist Labor party founded one hundred years after this nation was founded in 1876. they all have their own web sites and can be seen as evenly divided up into the two factions of the right and of the left.

There are thirty political parties that were founded in the twentieth century. The oldest of these is the Communist Party of the United States which was found in 1919. the youngest being the Working family Party and the Independent American party, both founded in 1998. Of these thirty parties twelve of them openly declare themselves as being socialistic or communistic in ideology.

In the twenty-first century there were nineteen political parties founded. The last being founded just last year.

The question that has to be posed is that if the Democratic and Republican parties along with the Independents make up 100% of the voters in this nation then who makes up the membership of all of these other political parties of the nation and regions? Are the numbers so insignificant as to discount them from consideration?

I personally don't have the answer but, Boy, it sure sounds as if it would be a nice research project that you might take on for extra credit for your American History class.

It would be my prediction that with research we would be able to trim this list down and really see just how many political parties of influence there might be. Of course we know that pollsters have already taken this into consideration, don't we? And we know that the two big ones would never allow these smaller ones influence their ideas, don't we?"

I just nodded with a grin but as I thought on it I cringed at the thought of all of the research that a project like this would entail.