Words are so powerful that they can leave an indelible mark - especially on children. Whether positive or negative, words can have a tremendous impact.

Just consider these statements:

"You're worthless."
"How dumb can you be?"
"You'll never amount to anything."
"Are you that stupid?"
"Get your head out of the clouds."
"Why don't you use your brain."

Have you ever heard these words?

Have you ever said them to someone else? To a child?

The thing is, people often believe our assessment of them. Children (especially) wear our words like a label.

They could be words like: lazy, fat, stupid, worthless, pig, retarded, short, clumsy, failure, selfish, and ugly.
OR
words like: brilliant, beautiful, insightful, creative, funny, smart, bright, kind, and promising.

Which of these descriptions did you buy into as a child?

Which ones do you believe today?

If we buy into the negative descriptions, it becomes a vicious cycle. On the other hand, if we buy into the positive descriptions, it becomes a victorious cycle.

Here's what I mean: Our thoughts about ourselves become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Events in life are interpreted in a way that reinforces our preconceived notions. After going through adversity, someone with a negative self image might think, "I wonder what's going to happen to me next! I'm sure it won't be good." Someone with a positive self image might think, "Look at what I've overcome! Nothing can keep me down."

You know, God taught us this long before any psychologists understood it:
"Be careful how you think; your life is shaped by your thoughts." (Proverbs 4:23)
and, also,
"As a man thinketh, so is he." (Proverbs 23:7)

The philosopher Goethe aptly said, “The way you see people is the way you treat them and the way you treat them is what they become.” He taught that if we treat people as if they were what they ought to be, we help them become what they are capable of being! I believe this wholeheartedly.

Research has shown that when you give someone a compliment, they will strive to live up to it.

Want to conduct your own research? Do what a popular cartoonist did. He decided to amuse himself by sending telegrams to twenty acquaintances selected randomly. Each message contained only one word: “Congratulations!” As far as he knew, not one of them had done anything in particular to be congratulated on. However, each one took the message as a matter of fact and wrote him a letter of thanks. Everyone who received the message had done something that they regarded as clever and worthy of congratulations.

The impact of encouragement is limited only by its lack of use.

So, think about this for a second: how often do you encourage other people?

One of my mentors, Zig Ziglar, explains that "most people go around finding fault like there's some kind of prize for it, but I'd rather be a ‘good-finder.’" I agree with Zig, but encouragement doesn't come naturally. It takes practice.

Try this: put 7 coins in your left pocket and as you go through the day today, move one of the coins over to your right pocket each time you encourage someone. It can be pretty eye-opening when you empty your pockets at the end of the day. If the coins are still in the left pocket and you can't specifically remember any words of encouragement that day, you have a lot of work to do tomorrow. If all the coins made it over to the right pocket, try adding a few more tomorrow.

Every successful person can remember a time when someone saw greatness in them and told them so.

As a child, I bought into some negative descriptions. Thankfully, my perceptions changed when other people told me they saw something worthwhile in me.

I remember when a teacher told me that I was smart; when an uncle told me I had a good head for business; when a pretty girl told me I was interesting; and when a friend told me I had a good voice.

I also remember when I found out what God thinks of me. Just think, if there were a price tag on you or me, that price tag would have to read "Jesus" because that was what God was willing to pay for us.

You know the verse. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. It reminds me of a sign that read, “when I asked Jesus ‘how much do you love me’ He said ‘this much’ as He stretched out His arms on the cross and died.”

When we think about how much God values us, does it really make sense to keep carrying any of the limiting beliefs that we have bought into?

What limiting beliefs do you still have?

It might be helpful to know that YOUR PAST DOESN'T DETERMINE YOUR FUTURE.

Consider this:

* Beethoven’s music teacher once said, “As a composer, he is hopeless.”

* When Thomas Edison was a young boy, his teacher told him he was too stupid to learn anything and suggested that he pursue a field where he might succeed by virtue of his personality.

* When he was 21, F.W. Woolworth got a job in a dry goods store, but his employer would not permit him to wait on customers because he “didn’t have enough sense to close a sale.”

* Michael Jordon was cut from his high school basketball team.

* A newspaper fired Walt Disney because he, “lacked imagination and had no good ideas.”

* Einstein was 4 years old before he could talk.

* Isaac Newton did poorly in school and was said to be “unpromising”.

Like these folks' accomplishments show, our past doesn't determine our future. They believed in themselves because somewhere along the way, they met someone who saw greatness in them, expected it from them, and let them know it.

I see greatness in you and so does God!

"For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." Philippians 1:6
"You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world." 1 John 4:4

~Dan

 

A Great Day for Americans; A Dangerous Day for America
Part 2
November 6, 2008

In Part 1, we celebrated the positive things that can come from an our recent historic election. Now, it’s time to turn our attention toward the dangers we may face from the next presidential term.

President Elect Obama appears to be the most liberal candidate ever elected to be the leader of the free world. Though we can’t be sure how he will govern until it happens, he has given us some clues about his ideology that have many fearing a “Euro-socialist” or even “Marxist” bent.

In the past, when a President’s party also controlled Congress, the legislature was made up largely of moderates – but not this time. This is the first time since the 60s that liberal, not moderate, Democrats are dominant.

So, other than a blanket caveat of “bigger government” or “higher taxes”, what are some specific perils we should watch out for during the Obama Presidency? Here are a few:

Weakened National Defense
President Elect Obama said he “will cut … missile defense systems”, “not weaponize space”, “slow our development of future combat systems”, “not develop any new nuclear weapons”, and “achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal.” vid Barny Frank is already calling for a 25% reduction of military spending, saying, “We don't need all these fancy new weapons.” Yes, you read that right, a 25% reduction while we’re fighting two wars. So much for being able to negotiate from a position of strength. Consider the words of President Reagan: “Every lesson of history tells us that appeasement does not lead to peace. It invites an aggressor to test the will of a nation unprepared to meet that test. And tragically, those who seemingly want peace the most, our young people, pay the heaviest price for our failure to maintain our strength.”  article

Weakened Constitution - A Sharp Left-Turn for the Supreme Court
I believe this is the biggest danger from an Obama presidency.
President Elect Obama has promised to appoint very liberal (and specifically “pro-abortion”) Supreme Court Justices in order to guide constitutional interpretation. Many on the far left want such agenda-driven jurists to change national policy by simply reinterpreting the constitution and essentially legislating from the bench. The founding fathers never intended the judicial branch to legislate and they certainly never intended the constitution to be reinterpreted to suit current ideology or agendas. There is a proper way to change the Constitution when it needs to be changed.
President Elect Obama may have as many as three Justices to appoint during his four-year term. Their influence would weigh on our nation for decades to come.

Foreign Policy Faux Pas
There is a very real danger that our new President will be seen by our allies and adversaries as being week on foreign policy. Already Russia, Iran, Cuba, Israel, and Venezuela have each issued challenges to him in various ways. Of course, there is also always the possibility that he might act or react inappropriately. Remember the stern caveat that V.P. elect Biden gave: that this young President will be challenged and that it would not be immediately obvious that he reacted correctly.

Censorship
In an effort to silence the opposition, several Dem. leaders are proposing something they dubiously call “The Fairness Doctrine” that would require talk-radio stations to schedule the same amount air time for both liberal and conservative pundits. It should be called “The Censorship Doctrine” as its aim is to diminish the success that conservatives have on broadcast radio, the only medium they dominate. Liberal radio shows have largely failed. Even in the largest metropolitan markets, they don’t exactly thrive, but, merely survive. Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Al Gore are among the proponents of the censorship. Predictably, they don’t think it should be applied to newspapers or other media where liberals dominate.
Other legislation they are kicking around involves mandating more local content and less syndicated content on radio stations (whether the market wants it or not).
article, article

Weakened Industry from unfair Union Influence
There is no doubt that we are going to see several initiatives intended to favor unions and make organizing against employers easier than it has ever been. One initiative proposed by President Elect Obama and his cohorts in Congress would get rid of private ballots which are meant to shield employees from pressure and retribution from coworkers, union organizers and employers. The diminished productivity that comes from rewarding tenure over performance would increase operation costs which would result in a mass exodus of US companies. It would effectively cripple our country’s economy long-term.

Redistribution of Wealth
Even if the taxes are only increased for the wealthiest 5%, it will still impact all Americans. Think for a minute about what will happen when Walmart’s taxes are raised. Will the owners and stockholders just absorb the decrease in profitability? Of course not! Like every other business, they will pass it on to their customers. Corporations don’t pay taxes; their customers do, since business costs are passed along to customers.

Nationalized Banks, Healthcare, and Utilities
Karl Marx taught these steps to usher in socialism.
We’re seeing the first (nationalized central banks) happen before our eyes and hearing promises of the second (nationalized healthcare). Could the third be far behind?

Price Controls
This can sound like a good idea until you really think it through. I’ll leave the long explanation for another post, but suffice it to say that there can be a very large price to pay for the use of price controls. To be sustainable, price controls must be accompanied by rationing and subsidizing (if not outright nationalizing) of the controlled commodity.

Rationing
Surely the free citizens of the USA couldn’t be required to ration our food and necessities. Could we? On May 16 (and a few times since) Obama said, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.” article It reminds me of when Michelle Obama said, “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.” All this talk of rationing, eating less, and, well, pie makes me hungry… and a little scared.

Extreme Abortion Policies
As one of the most extreme proponents of abortion in the Senate, President Elect Obama supported late-term and partial-birth abortions and voted against providing care for infants that survived the abortion. Look for him to lift a ban on using foreign aid to fund abortions and eliminate requirements for abstinence education on his very first day on the job using executive orders.

Compulsory Service
President Elect Obama said on July 2, 2008 that he wants to institute a Civilian National Security Force that rivals the military in power and scope. vid Rham Emanuel, his Chief of Staff, described it as “universal civil defense training” where every young American would be compelled to complete a number of months of military type training. vid  If you want to research this further, check out Israel’s compulsory service.

Stopping Domestic Drilling
Expect the new President to reinstate all restrictions on domestic drilling that were recently loosened in response to public outcry.

As these or any other dangers begin to materialize, we all need to be ready to enter the debate and voice our opinions to lawmakers.

______________________________
Dan Young is a citizen-turned-online-journalist who is fed up with the media's blatant bias, the Democrats' double-speak, and the Republicans' fiscal recklessness.

A new study shows that media coverage of John McCain has been more than three times as negative as the coverage of Barack Obama. 

Like we really needed a study to tell us that!

Full article: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/22/study_coverage_of_mccain_much.html

___________________________________________
Dan Young is a citizen-turned-online-journalist who is fed up with the media's blatant bias, the Democrats' double-speak, and the Republicans' fiscal recklessness.

WHAT CAUSED THE CRISIS? There’s plenty of blame to go around.

    Three contributing factors caused the failure of Wall Street banks.

#1 “Shady” accounting practices that were overlooked by lawmakers.
#2 Government mandated sub-prime lending.
#3 The use of credit default swaps to insure or hedge against default.

    Let’s take a closer look at each of these contributors.

#1 “Shady” accounting practices that were overlooked by lawmakers.
    The regulatory agency, OFHEO, which provided oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, reported illegal accounting activities to Congress. They found that the GSEs (Government Sponsored Entities) improperly applied accounting rules and improperly managed earnings, making themselves look stronger fiscally than they were. Fannie Mae’s Chairman and CEO Frank Raines (now Obama’s financial advisor) was asked in the congressional hearings why it’s OK for his company to have so much less capital set aside than regular banks. Raines responded, “Because there aren’t any banks that only have multi-family and single-family loans. These assets are so risk-less that capital needed to hold them should be under 2%.” Obviously, the risk was far greater than he let on.

Video: Watch Congress turn a blind eye and deny there is any risk:
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=184743

#2 Government mandated sub-prime lending.
    This is one of the ways the US Government has rigged our economy in favor of debt.  When you see “subprime” read “unqualified” or “high risk.” Subprime mortgages are simply risky mortgages given to low-income borrowers with poor credit. Gee, who would have thought that could fail?

    The Community Reinvestment Act kick-started the growth of subprime lending in 1977 but it wasn’t really very successful until 1995 when the changes ordered by President Clinton took effect. Among other things, these changes mandated increased access to mortgage credit for inner-city and distressed, rural communities.

    There are consequences any time the government monkeys with the market. The government’s role is solely to make sure the market remains fair and un-manipulated.

#3 The use of credit default swaps to insure or hedge against default.
    Credit default swaps (CDS) are highly complex financial instruments; a type of derivative for the financial sector. In simple terms they allow investors to speculate on the future value of loans without taking any financial responsibility for them.

    As an analogy, let’s say your neighbor offers to replace your insurance company by stating he might buy your car if it becomes damaged. He’s not planning to set aside any money to pay for your car and he isn’t obligated to buy it but you are obligated to sell it to them if he chooses to exercise he option. You would probably laugh at him for suggesting such a ridiculous scam. The same principle was swallowed hook, line and sinker by Wall Street. They embraced the idea and a new industry was born.

    CDS were seen as easy money with little risk during the real estate boom. Unlike banks and insurance companies, the CDS market isn't regulated; anyone could get involved, whether they had the resources to cover the losses from a default or not. So everyone got involved, even the Wall Street banks. Lately, investors have become jittery, making the CDS hard to sell. AIG reported the biggest loss in their history largely due to an $11 billion writedown on its own CDS holdings.
 
    Warren Buffett described derivatives like CDS as “financial weapons of mass destruction." In an annual report to shareholders in 2002, he said, "Unless derivatives contracts [such as credit default swaps] are collateralized or guaranteed, their ultimate value also depends on the creditworthiness of the counterparties to them. In the meantime, though, before a contract is settled, the counterparties record profits and losses--often huge in amount--in their current earnings statements without so much as a penny changing hands. The range of derivatives contracts is limited only by the imagination of man (or sometimes, so it seems, madmen)."

    Derivatives also provide a dangerous and perverse incentive for creative accounting; either from sincere optimism or blatant fraud (remember Enron?).

What didn’t cause the Crisis:
    Wild rumors of other culprits abound, so let’s list a few of the things that didn’t cause the crisis.

• Lack of regulation didn’t cause the crisis. Congress refused to act on the reports of fraud from the established regulators.
• Capitalism didn’t cause the crisis. The market itself didn’t create the problems, irresponsibility did.
• Bundling loans didn’t cause the crisis … it just exacerbated the problem.
• Neither the Democrat party nor the Republican party created the crisis alone. Both contributed significantly by what they did and what they failed to do.
  

So how should we fix it?
    In short, we can’t really “fix it.” The purpose of the bailout, which would only put a band-aid on the problem, is to discourage wide-spread panic in the stock market. No one knows how bad the long-term consequences will be from such massive manipulation of the market. In principle, I’m against bailouts.

    Having said that, I think we should follow through with this one. Why? Because, for the last several years, we said we would. It’s that simple. No matter how foolish a promise, we have to stand by our word.

    Of course, any language promising to continue the risky subprime loans has to be removed from the final bailout. We must stop treating home ownership like it’s a constitutional right! The American Dream is for us to earn our property and prosperity, not to have it given to us. 

Additional notes:
    For a comparison of the original Paulson bailout, Barney Franks proposals and the final proposal defeated on 9/29, visit:
http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/TapscottsCopyDesk/Comparison_of_original_
Paulson_bailout_to_compromise_proposal.html

    Here’s a great video that further details the issue.
Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis? (with links to information in video)
http://themountainsage.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/video-burning-down-the-house-what-caused-our-economic-crisis/

_________________________
Dan Young is a citizen-turned-online-journalist who is fed up with the media's blatant bias, the Democrats' double-speak, and the Republicans' fiscal recklessness.

Newsweek writer Jonathan Alter tells us that the media must do "its job" and take out Sarah Palin.

Here's an excerpt from his article:
"I'd imagine that Palin will dodge press conferences in favor of interviews with people like Sean Hannity, Larry King and Ellen DeGeneres. Then, when the media complain that she is being kept away, the McCain campaign will cite the half dozen or so interviews she has granted as proof that the campaign press is just bellyaching. Brief press 'avails' on the plane will be useless, unless reporters ask open-ended queries designed to elicit proof of real knowledge. That should get Palin through the next three weeks. By the end of the month, the McCain camp can say she has to go to ground to prepare for [her] debate, where expectations will be so low for Palin that she will likely emerge intact.

"It will be up to the press and public to raise enough of a stink about this, that Palin is forced to submit to real interviews with real questions that show whether her real-life experience is any preparation for assuming high office. In that sense, the Palin nomination is as much of a test of us as it is of her."

                                                                       
Dan Young is a citizen-turned-journalist who is fed up with the media's blatant bias, the Democrats' double-standard, and the Republicans' fiscal recklessness.

Is the way the media has treated Governor Sarah Palin sexist? Absolutely. Suggestions that she is neglecting her family by pursuing a national office and the assumption that childrearing is a "woman's job" are certainly sexist.

Aides to Hillary Clinton think so too: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13129.html

                                                                        
Dan Young is a citizen-turned-journalist who is fed up with the media's blatant bias, the Democrats' double-standard, and the Republicans' fiscal recklessness.

Country First or Self First?
McCain's & Obama's Priorities Differ
by Dan Young

McCain put his country first when he said he’d rather loose an election than a war.
Obama put himself first when he decided to run for the highest office in the land after only a few months as senator.

McCain put his country first when he broke with his party on water boarding and comprehensive immigration reform.
Obama put himself first when he avoided taking a stand by voting “present” nearly 130 times.

McCain put his country first when he fought to curtail earmarks.
Obama put himself first when he broke his promise to not accepted public funds for his campaign.

McCain put his country first when he refused to be released before other prisoners of war.
Obama put himself first when he launched his political career in the living room of known terrorist William Ayers.

McCain put his country first when he fought against congressional corruption.
Obama put himself first when he let Tony Rezko raise funds for him and help him buy his house.

McCain put his country first when he reached across the isle and led the gang of 14.
Obama put himself first when he blamed lack of heartland support on bitter people clinging to their guns and Bibles.

McCain put his country first when he denounced the use of Obama’s middle name in a disparaging way.
Obama put himself first when he let Bill Clinton be labeled a racist.

McCain put his country first when he didn’t give up on his presidential bid.
Obama put himself first when he didn’t give the Clintons any credit.
                                                                        
Dan Young is a citizen-turned-online-journalist after becomming fed up with the media's blatant bias, the Democrats' double-standard, and the Republicans' reckless abandonment of fiscal responsibility.

 

POT CALLS THE KETTLE "INEXPERIENCED"
by Dan Young, www.oneempowered.com

When asked by Anderson Cooper what his response is to republicans who say Governor Palin has more executive experience than he does, Obama said:

"Well, uh, you know, uh, my understanding is - is that, uh, Gov. Palin’s, uh, town, Wassilly, uh, has I think 50 employees, uh. We've got 2500, uh, in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year, uh. Ya know, we have a budget of about three times that, uh, just for the month, uh. So I think that, uh, our ability to manage large systems, uh, and to, execute, uh, I think has been made clear over the last couple of years, uh, and certainly in terms of, uh, the legislation that I’ve passed just dealing with this issue post-katrina, uh, of how we handle emergency management. The fact that, uh, many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place, uh, as we speak, I think indicates the degree to which, uh, we can provide, uh, the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect."

Minimizing Governor Palin’s Experience
Overlooking, for the moment, the fact that he called Wasilla "Wasilly" and said "Uh" no less than 20 times in 57 seconds, Obama’s answer focused solely on Governor Palin’s mayoral experience and completely ignored her current role of running a state with a GDP of over 44 billion dollars. He also didn’t mention any of Palin’s other political accomplishments as a reformer and governor. Just a few examples:

• Defeated the Republican incumbent in the gubernatorial primary, then beat a former Democrat governor in the general election to become Alaska’s first female Governor and the youngest, at 42, in Alaskan history
• Elected twice to city council
• Elected twice as mayor (beating an incumbent) where she reduced property tax 40% and reduced the mayoral salary
• Served as the first female President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors
• Served as Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard, a vital first line of our nation’s defense (another female first)
• Chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and served as Ethics Supervisor
• She blew the whistle on the chairman of her own party, resulting in his resignation and a fine
• Vetoed over 300 spending proposals last year, representing over 230 million dollars
• Sold the state-owned private jet, saving the state millions of dollars
• Garnered the highest approval rating of any governor in the country

Watch: Newt Gingrich responds to "the experience question:"

Is Alaska an Insignificant State?
It’s not clear if pronouncing Wasilla as “WaSILLY” was intentionally condescending or just a Freudian slip. What Obama did make clear was that he believes the population and budget of the small town is insignificant, ignoring that Governor Palin’s career entails much more than being a past mayor. Many media pundits have made the same arguments about Alaska’s insignificance as a state. In total Gross Domestic Product, Alaska ranks 48th and 47th in terms of population (ahead of North Dakota, Vermont, the District of Columbia, and Wyoming. In GDP per capita, however, it’s a different story. In 2006, Alaska ranked sixth among states with a GDP per capita of $43,748, compared to the national average of $37,714. Delaware led the nation with the highest per capita GDP of $59,288.

In 2006 Alaska ranked sixth among states with
highest per capita GDP by state. Source: U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis


Does RUNNING for President Qualify Barack to BE President ???
Obama seems to think so. While contrasting Governor Palin’s experience with his own, Obama takes credit for running his own campaign and infers that such experience qualifies him to be president. By that logic, wouldn’t his campaign manager, David Plouffe, be the person who is qualified to be president?


BARACK’S VERBAL TIC – Can You Count the “Uh”s?
Barack Obama’s 57 second answer to Anderson Cooper’s question about experience contained no less than 20 “Uh”s.

See if you can count the “Uh"s in his answer:
 

                                                                        
Dan Young is a citizen-turned-online-journalist after becoming fed up with the media's blatant campaigning, the Democrats' double-standard, and the Republicans' reckless abandonment of fiscal responsibility.