The Last Days Of The American Auto Industry

LastDays

Advertisements
Posted in Economics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Target: Gun Owners Who Amass Excessive Armaments Primarily for Crime in Public Places

Image

My heart is broken. I had anxiety for months wondering who would be next.

After the Colorado theater tragedy, I pondered, ‘…how could this have been prevented?’

I’m sick and tired of the defenses for the 2nd amendment, which was designed for protection against roaming bears and attacks for and against the ‘Manifest Destiny’.

I am no longer wasting time attempting to move guns themselves from one place to another. The resistance there is formidable and well-paid.

Among the tons of appeals for someone else to ‘take action’, I have put a little thought to the matter that could have long-term impact on this important issue. We just have to get started.

Guns don’t kill….bullets do.

We’re all scanned as a part of everyday life. We all know what we can bring and what we can’t bring.

What if law-abiding citizens were ‘scanned’ and allowed to proceed, but, malicious citizens, those with excessive quantities of arms…..and BULLETS…could be detected by scanners, in advance?

RFID technology is mature and cheap. A chip placed in every bullet manufactured would clearly show the difference between 6 chips and 100 chips moving into an unauthorized public area, such as a mall, a toll booth, a stadium, an airport, or near children. A scanner located within 9m is enough to detect a single chip. Multiple chips create even larger signatures.

Please sign and forward my petition that will require this simple, inexpensive and highly effective method to identify those who are over the expected threshold for possession of arms, and bullets.

It’s time to stop asking for others to take action. It’s time to get moving – NOW!

Thank you for your time and attention.

This is prevention against many future events that need our immediate attention now.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/554/126/837/stop-misuse-of-2nd-amendment-rights-by-targeting-malicious-gun-owners/

– 1,000 signatures needed!!!

Hold Gun Owners Responsible

Posted in gun control, gun rights | Leave a comment

A Few Simple Rules of Motivation

Whether you drag yourself or whether you drag yourself down is up to you. It can be a conscious choice you make every, single day. Or, if you are not properly feeding your sub-conscious mind, you can make the same positive or negative choices under your own ‘radar’. Whenever you are faced with this conflict of choices, bring with you a few tiny nuggets of wisdom on motivation.

Never mind that you’re not this or that.
It all begins with little excuses like ‘I don’t feel good’, ‘I am not that smart’, ‘I don’t have enough faith in myself’. Then you start believing in these things as if they are written in stone. Next, these negative beliefs become a part of your system, a part of who you are.

Don’t give a second’s worth of recognition on these negative self-talks. Whenever you hear that part of your brain tell you things that can pull you down, shut it out (strike it with a positive and an affirmative ‘CHANGE IT’) and listen to that less powerful, but often times ignored voice that says ‘you can!’. Then, maximize it.

Start with a little faith – in yourself, in what you can do, and the things you believe in or recall the things that you’ve already done that have worked for you. It also doesn’t matter if you fail, since everyone goes through that process. What really matters is that every time you do, you bounce back, rebuild yourself, and give the world a better you as a result.

Be very careful when choosing your side.
You can either talk yourself into doing the task or not, which means you can either be a part of success that one part of your head says you can be, or take part in the downfall the other side of your head tries to go to. Henry Ford said, ‘whether you think that you can or you think that you can’t, you’re right’. Always take that side of your brain that believes in you, that cares about your well-being, and pushes you to be the person you are trying to be.

Try to win the debate with yourself every time. Remember that sometimes, the act of doing something is not really that difficult. It’s the few minutes of mental chatter leading up to doing the act.

Hold on to that something that matters to you.
There is nothing more meaningful in life than that something that we dearly hold on to. Some people call it their passion, others call it their cause. What do you call yours?

Cause, passion, or whatever it is that propels your inner drive to accomplish something is a very powerful source of motivation. It never runs dry. It flows so long as you hold on to that thing you care about. Sometimes, it is what makes people do the impossible in the face of difficulties. And it is that thing that gives them the courage to face and get through the biggest difficulties life throws at them.

Dream big.
Big dreams inspire. It makes people work harder, with even more passion. What would happen to people if they fail to take aim? Nothing. No risk, no reward. If there are no Olympic medals and several hundred Olympians to compete against, the champions will never exist. If Mount Everest is not the highest mountain, there will be no mountaineers and hikers who struggle everyday to reach the peak.

If you don’t dream big, you would stay forever in that nook of the world where everything is mediocre, where sense of achievement is an abstract concept, and where success is all but nonexistent.

Compete with yourself.
Competing with others is good, but oftentimes it is a sure-fire way to demotivate yourself because you will start to compare yourself with others each and every time.
Never compare yourself with others, because there area always others greater than or lesser than yourself. Run your own, personal race. How many times have you heard the saying, ‘you are your worst enemy’?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Is It Only For The Wealthy?

From the standpoint of estate and tax planning, involving cash gifts between individuals, or between individual and organization, the process is known to follow a familiar legal and rule-based framework. This process is well-known, accepted and hardly questioned when it is conducted according to the standard precedent.

As a contrast, when cash gifts are conducted following the same rules, limits, etc. outside of the estate and tax planning framework, there appears to be a very disparate mental approach to the ideas of how cash can be distributed between individuals.

Initially, a legal and rule-based process entitles legitimacy for handling of those assets for those of substantial or of sufficient financial means. Professional advice is acquired and used as a normal consequence of participating according to the rules. However, outside of this familiar context, the exchange of personal gifts carries a penalty of suspicion, and, in a few states, including Iowa and Kentucky, actual penalties under specific circumstances.

Mentally and structurally, those who seek to examine gifting activities outside of tax and estate planning scenarios are involved first in a balance of the possibilities, both right and wrong, in the array of available programs, systems, etc. This examination scenario then follows with a breaking down of a significant mental barrier of a different type, a barrier that is key to the gifting concept – that one gives first, initially for the benefit of the recipient, as an act of faith, and, as a means of attraction from others who have developed the ability to break through the same barrier. Honestly, the idea of releasing hard-earned assets goes totally against all that we are taught. We are taught that non-organizational, benevolent giving is frequently a basis for fraudulent activity, and that ‘if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.’ However, benevolence is a learned behavior, or not one that is necessarily natural for many, and is and should be expected to be the primary motivator. Without it comes the need for scrutiny and suspicion, based upon the history of previous abuses in some not so well-intended approaches historically.

Naturally, or perhaps, incredibly, in light of the characteristic of suspicion otherwise, there is an entirely different perception that under estate planning rules, a win-win is the goal of all participants, unquestionably. Estate and tax planning in itself is a perpetual exercise in win-win, to treat the tax laws fairly, while seeking the best outcome for the management of ones personal, appreciated and acquired assets.

It is totally up to those who participate in all gifting, and particularly for purposes not involved in estate planning, to scrutinize the motivations, the processes and programs that exist, to insist that ethics and laws are respected, and to maintain reasonable expectations with regard to what can or should happen as a result of any participation.

Posted in Economics, finance, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Making the Change from the JOB Mindset

All of us are exposed on a daily basis to the apparent scarcity of traditional job opportunities in the current economic environment. It is a particularly wrenching exercise for the individuals who have not yet faced up to the necessity of making the transition to alternate methods of income, until pressed to do so by external forces. To the contrary, there are many others who have at least made mental preparations for these conditions by pursuing alternate activities, regardless of the certainty of outcome that many others prefer to see before taking on such pursuits.

Many in that second category, sometimes referred to as entrepreneurs, find frustration in attempting to bridge their enthusiasm in their new or optimistic endeavors with the mindsets of others, including members of their immediate circle. For example, your team partner, the engineer, who has worked alongside you on many projects does not understand your desire to create an unrelated business in your off-hours. Or, your trusted family member sees your extra-career pursuits as flights of fancy or as wasteful distractions.

Is it you or is it them? Is there some distinctive yes or no as to who stands on the right or the wrong side?

There is really no reason to pursue the disconnect between you, the entrepreneur, the visionary, the dreamer, and those others who simply have no view outside of their own perspective or into yours or mine. It’s simply a matter of choice, rather than of right or wrong. One true ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ would be in not recognizing when the presence of complacency stands as your partner in the midst of a currently unfavorable environment. Such a situation would be in organizational or career stagnation. You should then recognize the need to step through the gap from your past and move into your future. Pursuing a new direction when the opportunity presents itself, far ahead of the actual need, is a definite case of ‘right’.

From a strictly psychological point of view, each of us, in general, falls into one of two categories when it comes to the concept of motivation; either by (1) finding motivation based upon a fear of loss, or, (2) finding motivation based upon an opportunity for gain. In the first example, one might start a new venture only after being motivated by a threat of a career-ending company merger. While, alternately, in the second example, a new venture is initiated due mainly to the feeling of the excess obligations involved in carrying the title of Vice-President, a large office and a medium six-figure salary. It has also been proven that once we begin with the choice between these two bases of motivation, many of our subsequent decisions are also made from the habit, or the preference, of one type of motivation over the other.

It should then, therefore, come as no surprise that the probability of success in a new venture has a direct bearing on whether or not one is using opportunity or fear as their motivator. And in a manner similar to a hiring preference, an entrepreneurial partner is more likely to prefer a new partnership with one who seeks opportunity than one who fears loss. Simply put, the one who seeks a reasonable opportunity is looking forward, while the one who fears loss is looking backward.

Posted in Economics, Employment, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

‘HOW’ Cash Gifting Works

‘HOW’ Cash Gifting Works – The Reality

Is it the fear of accepting that which appears to be an unconventional method of exchanging gifts with others that causes some to suspect or suggest, without proof, the presence of malicious intent?  At least one of the primary barriers to successful application of cash gifting happens to be a mental one.

There are long-standing traditions in other cultures, specifically Asian and Jewish, of creating financial strength through unity, specifically through the process of gifting.   Even as Western culture thrives on the notions of self-accomplishment, self-merit and individuality, some other cultures find their virtue in the benefits of collective energy.

Some of the confusion in Western culture relates to an impression that gifting somehow represents illegitimate competition for traditional enterprise, and, therefore, is somehow removing mindshare, and, of course, redirecting assets which might be applied to commercial activity and replacing it with something that is much less deserving of formal recognition.  This combination of a lack of understanding, and the fear of competition, is, therefore, erroneously perceived as a threat by those who would choose not to participate, or even to judge objectively.

That objection is from a mindset of ‘scarcity’, or one of limited resources.  It pretends that gifting is composed only of recipients, while ignoring the ‘products’ of the resulting output of those who recycle their gifts into a new sequence of other activities.  The late Jim Rohn once said that if you feel that your cup is full, you can only create the capacity to carry more by first emptying some from the cup first.  You might eventually receive more in return than that which you remove, if you will allow it to happen

Legally, the restrictions on the annual limits on gifting maintain a well-supervised monitor of activity.  Why would there be legally defined gifting limits if gifting were illegal?   This is certainly not to say that gifting in any form is fair and proper.  Even Bernard Madoff used legitimate instruments, financial derivatives, or options, in an improper exercise of structural deception to defraud others of over $50 billion for his own purposes.  Thousands of others, however, make their living by following the rules that Madoff ignored, as they use those same instruments day in and day out.   I use them myself to create double digit returns in very short periods of time, but,  of course, only with a small portion of my portfolio, due to the risks involved.  I do this by knowing the rules and the risks, and by following signals of a technical, legal, and, of course, an emotional nature.  Similarly, there exists a healthy level of gifting activity that provides benefit to all who legitimately participate, without a threat of any kind to other dissimilar,  mostly commercial activities.

It’s my long-term goal to ultimately dispose of excess resources by ‘gifting’ as many rightful group and individual recipients of my contributions as possible, to be used as they please.   It is an unfortunate fact that underfunding exists in far too many areas, both private, public and non-profit areas and locations.

By opening up as many approaches to accumulating assets as possible, I will maintain an edge over those who are bound within their own self-imposed limits, particularly limits that do not exist elsewhere, including those within long-standing cultural or legal traditions.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment