SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BUYS 174,000 ROUNDS OF HOLLOW-POINT AMMO

By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
August 26, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

"The American dream is not that every man must be level with every other man. The American dream is that every man must be free to become whatever God intends he should become." --Ronald Reagan

The Social Security Administration has purchased 174 thousand rounds of hollow point bullets to be delivered to 41 locations in major cities across the U.S. Is the Obama Administration planning to stop issuing Social Security checks? Do they expect violence?

Stories regarding the purchase of the ammo range from 20,000 Spetznazs (Russian commandos) having crossed over the Canadian border into the U.S. and being taken to the underground areas of Denver International Airport to… you name it. Are they true? Who knows?

Republican candidate Mitt Romney has a hard time connecting with conservatives (without whose support he will not be elected). He and his Vice Presidential candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), want to keep the debate focused on the failed economic issues of the Obama administration, but the President favors personal attacks over meaningful debate. If we look at his record, that should surprise no one.

Stop and think for one moment about all of the poor people you’ve known in your life. If you are like me, you may have at one time been one of those people. How many poor people create jobs for others? I didn’t create any jobs for people when I was poor, but later in life after a lot of hard work resulting in success I created a lot of jobs.

We all need to understand that the reason the Obama camp needs to pit the poor against the affluent is because there are always more poor than there are rich – thus, more votes. He must make them feel like Romney is against them – when quite the opposite is true. That’s why Joe Biden told a group of low-income folks that the Romney-Ryan ticket was going to put them “back in chains.”

Regardless, Romney and Ryan both have difficulty (for different reasons) connecting with the American people when they discuss things like job creation and new business start-ups. Romney likes to think his experience as a venture capitalist gives him insight into independent business start-ups and job creation – and it does… slightly. A vast majority of independent businesses, however, are not traded on Wall Street.
The following data was taken from the Small Business Administration (SBA) pages.

Small firms:

• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ half of all private sector employees.
• Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43 percent of high tech workers ( scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
• Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

Independent businesses create most new jobs. Mitt Romney understands independent business from the perspective of a venture capitalist. Paul Ryan understands it from a budgetary perspective. Thus, neither really understands the banking problems of those who own independent businesses – almost all of whom are conservative and who frequently don’t understand their own business borrowing problems (they aren’t bankers either) and so can’t explain the phenomenon to political candidates. It’s a difficult problem.

Don’t get me wrong. Romney-Ryan are far more in tune with what needs to be done to get business growth and new jobs moving forward than Obama-Biden, but neither is very good at explaining why independent businesses are so important and what needs to be done to motivate new business start-ups. It’s a problem made up of banking and credit issues, not of venture capital or budgets.

First, existing independent business owners utilize their primary residence as their main source of loan collateral. Banks are not lending against personal residences because home values are falling. Before you criticize the bankers, make sure you don’t care if your bank takes risks lending your deposit dollars because poor quality collateral puts your bank deposits at risk. You have a vested interest in your personal bank remaining “safe.”

Second, political candidates need to talk clearly about the problems of independent business. It can be done in few words. For example:

1. “Banks can’t lend money to independent business owners who most often use their home as collateral for business borrowing because the Obama administration has failed to put a floor under the sinking real estate market and property values continue to drop. Bankers would be irresponsible to take people’s homes as collateral on business loans in the current real estate market. They would be putting depositor dollars at risk.”

2. “As Ronald Reagan once said, ‘Government isn’t the solution; it’s the problem.’ We can’t get independent business growth – which is where a majority of new jobs come from – until bankers understand how to make business purpose loans to individuals, not just to corporations. It has been done very successfully in the past and that area of specialty lending needs to be revived.

“Government’s answer is the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA does the same thing bankers do: They make business purpose loans to companies based on business assets, not to individuals based on personal income and assets.

“Independent business owners must borrow as individuals, putting their personal assets at risk, not corporate stock (like multi-nationals and publicly-traded companies do). The banking industry is set up to make business purpose loans based on company assets and cash flow; or, personal loans based on personal assets and cash flow. So, too, is the SBA.

“Independent business owners need business purpose loans based on personal assets and cash flow. The current structure of the banking industry and the SBA prevents that. What’s the result? No loans to independent businesses and thus no new jobs.”

I don’t believe there is one word in those paragraphs that would not be quickly understood by the average American… at least by the average productive American who works and pays taxes.

We have a Republican candidate for the Presidency whose campaign aides don’t know how to respond to demands for more and more years of tax returns. Could there be anything simpler?

There is a picture of Mitt Romney on the right side of your tv screen. The page is titled: “Missing Documents.” Under Romney’s name (and picture, for those who cannot read but who do vote) you list “Income tax returns.”

There is a picture of Barack Obama on the left side of the screen. Under his picture you list: 1) Occidental College records (California); 2) Columbia University records (New York); 3) Harvard University records (Cambridge, MA); 4) Unanswered questions, draft registration card; 5) Unanswered questions, multiple Social Security Numbers; 6) Explanation why Barack and Michele Obama lost licenses to practice law in Illinois.

No voice over is necessary. No one has to touch the birther issue of which Republicans are so frightened. They could just have someone in the background laughing – hard. It is laughable that the Obama campaign would talk about the importance of transparency and Romney’s need to produce tax returns when the President is the King of Hidden Facts.

I don’t know about you, but I’m sickened by the lies and distortions of this political campaign! It seems to be about womens’ uteruses (abortion rights and access to “free” birth control – paid for by taxpayers), the poor and how to give them something for nothing to buy their votes (along with their dignity as human beings), the elderly and whether they will have equal access young people have to health care or whether the Medicare system will fail because of empty promises that cannot be kept versus budgetary constraints that can save the system.

How did that happen when the real issues involve the economy and jobs?

Obama supporters say Mitt Romney killed a man’s wife because he bought a company that was failing (it wouldn’t have been for sale if it wasn’t failing). As you read the following facts about GST Steel, remember that Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to lead preparations for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Joe Soptic (the man whose wife died of cancer – may God rest her soul) lost his job in 2001 and his wife maintained health insurance with her employer. Soptic's wife died in 2006, seven years after Romney left Bain Capital. This is a typical liberal attitude… “Everyone but me is responsible that I didn’t have health insurance for over four years after I lost my job because my company closed. My wife got cancer and died. Mitt Romney killed her.”

Here are the facts:

• GST Steel in Kansas City was shut down in 2001.
• Jonathan Lavine, a long-time Bain Capital executive and co-owner of the Boston Celtics. Lavine began his career at Bain in 1993. Today, he is a “bundler” for Obama and has bundled from $100,000 to $200,000 in contributions for the 2012 Obama Victory Fund according to estimates released by the Obama campaign.
• Joe Soptic was offered a buy-out when GST Steel was bought by Bain but refused it.
• Soptic got another job; he declined their insurance plan.
• Soptic’s wife had her own health insurance plan through 2003… two years after Soptic’s company was shut down.
• In 2006, Soptic’s wife was diagnosed with very late-stage cancer.
• She died 22 days after diagnosis.

PAC Priorities USA created the ad blaming Romney for Mrs. Soptic’s death. They should be sued under Federal Communications Commission truth in advertising laws.

Soptic’s pitiable behavior makes it clear that he suffers from guilt. So very sad… sad that it happened, sad that he has not yet come to grips with the reality of his wife’s fate and the factual reasons for it, sad that a politician would use such a situation to make political points. But personal attacks are the only dog Obama has to bring to this fight because his record as President since 2008 is so abysmal he can’t run on it. He – or his minions like PAC Priorities USA – are reduced to using people in pain to tell stories that help them blame others – like Mitt Romney – for their problems.

I’m sick of hearing about abortion… the only thing I’m sicker of is having the government pay for abortions which means my tax dollars are being used to pay for what I consider to be murder. I don’t care if you don’t consider it to be murder. I do. And the truth of the abortion issue is: The Supreme Court (Roe v. Wade still lives) has ruled on the abortion issue and as much as Barack Obama wants you to think the President of the United States can do something about it, he cannot. It doesn’t matter whether his name is Barrack or Mitt. The federal government shouldn’t be in anyone’s bedroom… this is an issue for each state’s voters to decide.

Another thing: We the People are supposed to pay for the birth control of female college students. If Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student who testified at Democrat hearings on contraception, is an example of the intellect of today’s law students, we need to prevent lawyers from holding office as elected officials. She is revered by liberals and is scheduled to speak at the Democrat National Convention in Charlotte, NC.

We have a dumbed-down public that it doesn’t realize all of these disinformation tactics are being used to divert attention from basic problems. To prevent solutions to problems (like job creation) and keep people focused on issues (like birth control).

Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s choice as his Vice Presidential candidate, has good insight into changes that can save Medicare… but the Romney campaign is so bereft of a good communicator! Paul Ryan is a good candidate – he has supported legislation with which I disagree, but our greatest weakness right now is budgetary resulting from Democrat Congressional over-spending – and that is Ryan’s strength. The problem is, his solutions are not easily explained in sound bites… and Obama uses that weakness against Romney-Ryan.

Romney-Ryan need to say: “Here’s your choice: Without changes, Medicare will fail altogether because it is bankrupting America. If that is your preference, vote for Barack Obama. If you want changes made that can save Medicare without changing benefits to current recipients, vote for Romney-Ryan.”

They need to say: “If you are a senior citizen and have a stroke in the middle of the night, Obamacare dictates that you will not be able to get more than basic treatment until a committee meets and approves or denies your doctor’s recommended care. If you have a stroke on Friday night, do you want to wait until Monday morning for the bureaucrats to meet and determine your fate?”

How difficult is it to say: “Those of you who support Obamacare also must approve of over $700 billion stolen by the Democrat Congress from the Medicare fund to pay for the implementation of Obamacare. The Romney-Ryan ticket doesn’t support that theft from Medicare and will repeal this socialist legislation.”

How difficult is it to say: “You are told that an independent third party – non-partisan AARP – approves of Obamacare. AARP represents the best interests of seniors, right?

“AARP operates as a tax-exempt organization in Washington and if it were a for-profit business, AARP would be the sixth-largest insurance company in America with profits of $427 million in 2009. It is estimated AARP’s increased insurance profits will exceed $1 billion when Obamacare is implemented. Romney-Ryan doesn’t support AARP’s profit-based opinions and will work to repeal this legislation.”

Hopefully, after the Republican Convention in Tampa this week, the Romney campaign will start acting like it wants to win!

© 2012 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved

---

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.

Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.
Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com
E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

CYCLES OF A NATION CALLED AMERICA

PART 2 of 4



By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
August 5, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

In a 2010 article titled “APES: Active Passive Energy Syndrome,” I explained the two different personality types that dominate American culture. Well, they dominate culture everywhere, but my research applied the concept to America. It was a series of two articles that explained why some of us are liberal and why some of us are conservative.

APES has definite application to American history. It has important connotations as to what decisions we will make for the future, and why.

A brief overview of the two personality styles is:

1. An Active is a person who comes by wealth by actively managing the risk of loss of one’s own assets to achieve it. Those assets may be money, they may be lifestyle, they may be a home and children, and they may be a job or profession. Wealth is made up of many elements. The character of the person determines the decisions made in life and the decisions made will characterize each person as either Active or Passive.

Thus, Actives are the shopkeepers of America, the independent business owners and the inventors. They are the free enterprisers.

2. Passives are people who come by wealth by allowing others to manage risk of loss for them. Rather than managing the risk of running their own businesses, they become part of a big corporation, for example. Thus, most teachers, professors, corporate executives (yes, even Lee Iacocca… he didn’t lend/risk his own money to save Chrysler; he risked the money of taxpayers), bureaucrats, media types – are Passives.

One good example of the differences between these two groups is their investment habits. Actives invest in themselves… in their ideas, in their businesses. Passives invest in the stock market or their partnership with other CPAs and lawyers (Actives usually have their own, independent practices). Passives create investment products that spread (rather than manage) risk… hedge funds and mutual funds (and life insurance).

Please remember the reference – these explanations represent a brief overview, not an in-depth explanation of a highly complex concept. Four pages of one sentence personality descriptions accompany the research (two pages for each group).

Why am I revisiting this subject? Because most Americans feel the fight between one group and the other; many consider it a fight between good and evil (and it is). Others consider it a fight between political parties (and it is). Still others see it as a fight between freedom and slavery (and it is).

In truth, it is a fight between the preferred lifestyles of Actives (who are motivated by control) and Passives (who are motivated by power). Actives want to control their own destinies (which is why they invest the majority of assets in themselves – something they can control – not the stock or bond markets). Security-motivated Passives invest in stocks and bonds, insurance, hedge and mutual funds – things controlled by others which spread the potential risk of loss. Most people think power and control are the same things. They are not. Control is something one does behind one’s own nose; power is something one exercises behind the noses of others. For a more in-depth explanation, I suggest you read the 2010 APES article.

A look at six Active/Passive energy cycles in American history offers good insight into how each of these groups weave threads into a beautiful blanket resulting in a capitalist country called America.

During the 1600s through the mid-1700s, our nation was known as British North America. Diaries written by early American residents describe local economies as almost totally dependent for survival upon agriculture.

There being little accommodation for visitors, tourism contributed a minuscule portion to local economies. There was minimal trade with European nations, but no delivery system existed from one American community to another. Thus, until the mid-1760's, America had village economies driven by agriculture.

In 1760, the colonies entered a state of unrest. They also entered their first economic cycle driven by Active energies. Those energies motivated the Revolutionary War of the 1770's that ended in 1781. A rag-tag group of America’s colonial soldiers defeated the most dominant military in the world at that time.

Patrick Henry’s cry of “Give me liberty, or give me death,” tells of a man motivated by the management of risk to achieve the moral objective of his right to self-destiny. His cry is the theme song for Active/self investors. To freedom-loving people, there is nothing more exciting than a positive possibility and the desire to make it a reality.

Prior to the Revolutionary War (which gathered momentum from 1760 until the infamous tea party and resultant war over taxation without representation), the American economy and its political structure was controlled by the Crown... by outside forces.

What kinds of people leave a secure, well-ordered society in Europe for the insecurity of unsettled foreign shores? Part of the answer lies in the promise of land ownership and the right to self-destiny. The answer to the question? Actives, the risk managers of the world, leave the security of a well-ordered society for the insecurities of building a new nation.

In the America of old, our ancestors had no control over laws passed to govern them. During the first fifty year cycle (1607/Jamestown to 1660), there were so few people on the continent, so little wealth, so much disease and discomfort, the American colonists were relatively free to pursue their own destinies. A difficult, high-risk destiny it was. There was no “economic drive.” There was no “social agenda.” There was no “political agenda.” The agenda was survival. It was a high-risk environment -- but it offered land and wealth to those who could tolerate and manage risk.

Settling a wild, undeveloped land attracted those with Active energy whose high tolerance for risk management made them willing to wager their lives for freedom from religious persecution and the right to own their own land. There were other benefits – and downsides – too.

They may have been taxed by the British Crown, their laws may have come from foreign soil, but until the 1700's, there was not a great deal of interference from the British King’s military in the lives of American settlers.

The “nation” was so young during this time it could not really be defined as having an economic force with a primary drive. As I said, the primary drive was survival.

From 1660 to 1710, that changed. Wealth began to increase. Free enterprisers established modes of transportation ... stage and shipping companies. Entrepreneurs built small inns and hotels for travelers and tourists. Farms were plentiful. Shipping created an industry of its own with foreign nations of the world.

Security and wealth attract ... what? The Passive energy group. By 1710, the risks of survival on American soil were reduced as the risk-takers completed their jobs. Actives had established a functional social base. Opportunities for the wealth of future generations by land accumulation and the need for products and services in the new country were broadened.

Those with a lower tolerance for risk, motivated by the security of being able to own land, were attracted to American shores. The immediate objective changed from the risk management of establishing a workable social base and the daily life challenges involved in doing so, to making things bigger and more secure. Remember, bigger is safer than smaller and Passives are security-motivated people who like the security of “big.” Thus, we can see from our own history (though it has been the same in all nations of the world) how Actives have a specific role to create and innovate and Passives have a specific role to enlarge what Actives begin. There is a purpose for each group… though Actives have no respect for Passives and Passives fear where the risks being managed by the Active group will lead. They are not compatible groups. They weren’t then and they certainly are not today. Perhaps they were never intended to be compatible… but each has a purpose in a capitalist free enterprise economy.

Members of the Passive energy group began to move from their homes in lands ruled by monarchies to the new land. The thrust of this 1710 to 1760 fifty-year cycle was to secure and stabilize what the founders of Jamestown and Plymouth had begun. It was dominated by those who sought power, and by those who curried the favor of the powerful… at that time, it was still the King of England. Politics and the power that goes with governments that exercise control over the people had begun.

During the 1710 through 1760 fifty-year cycle, Passives brought stability and comfort to the rough-hewn Active American society created from 1660 to 1710.

New Englanders traded freely among themselves as did the colonists who had settled beyond the original Jamestown (or, James Cittie) colony. Thus, when the Active energy cycle of 1760 began, America’s economy was driven by agriculture and was regional (no longer village, or local) in nature. It was still ruled by a foreign monarch.

By 1760, individualistic Actives found themselves losing control of self-destiny. In 1773, the Boston Tea Party occurred. The Active cycle was a teenager. Three years later, Americans began the fight to gain control of their own destinies. They understood the risk-taking involved in forming a new nation. Citizens fought a war to change circumstances dictated by the Crown. They willingly risked their lives, their property, and their wealth to gain independence.

Some historians estimate the Revolutionary War was supported only by about forty percent of the people and was opposed by an equal number. Society today tends to be made up of similar percentages of Actives and Passives... about forty-forty. The remaining twenty percent are non-involved, non-political people who appear to have little drive, Active or Passive.

It is safe to say the period from 1760 through 1810 was dominated by the Active energy group. Most of the founding fathers believed in risk management, (which is a totally different concept than is risk elimination, the stated objective of socialism). Modern Americans appear to have forgotten what motivated (and won) their freedom-loving (often self-gratifying) lifestyles. Risk management, not risk elimination, is the rock upon which freedom is founded. The Revolutionary War was fought by conservatives with Active energy. Their reason for fighting it was to gain and maintain the rights of self-destiny. Passives who were loyal to the Crown did not support the war.

Our early patriots were willing to risk life and limb... provided they controlled the risks taken (a trait among all Actives… the reason in 2012 the Obama Administration is unable to get new jobs created; he wants to dictate the risks independent business owners will take.. and they want none of it). As we neared the end of the fifty-year Passive cycle in 1860, industry and manufacturing, was in its infancy and was beginning to replace agriculture as the driving economic force in America’s northern states. Agriculture (particularly cotton) remained the strength of the south. The nation’s economy was still regional, but the regions expanded in size as industry solidified its toehold.

© 2012 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved


Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.

Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.

Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com

E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

CYCLES OF A NATION CALLED AMERICA

PART 1 of 4



By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
July 29, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

In October 1990, Alvin Toffler accurately pointed out in his book PowerShift, that ideals inherent to traditional wealth in the world as we have known it are changing. We have slowly moved through currency stages... from coin to currency to plastic to knowledge. Toffler correctly points out that today's new wealth is knowledge. And though Toffler was right, he did not sufficiently explain the difference between information and knowledge.

As Toffler said, though, without knowledge in today's status of economic change, one cannot maintain – let alone achieve – wealth. We live in a nation wherein the economy is based on information, technology and service – and the last two in that list are dependent on the first: Information.

Knowledge should not be confused with "information" – and that is what the nations of the world are doing… possibly on purpose. In our information age, never before has so much information been available to people by a simple click of something called a “mouse.” And people tend to think by soaking up information they have gained knowledge when, indeed, they have only gained information. Some very unscrupulous people realized this and began massive campaigns to distribute disinformation. It is the latest, most up-to-date methodology devised to exercise power over the masses. Disinform them, divert their attention from real problems by misinforming them about issues. Keep them focused on the wrong issues so they totally overlook the real problems (problems are bigger deals than issues because they represent the core from which all issues derive). It’s called Psychological Operations – or, Psy-Ops.

It is a subtle but mystical conundrum that in the midst of an economic base change rooted in technology and information, few really understand the value of the information they hold. Fewer still appear to know what to do to maximize the value of accessible information. Only when people apply information and understand whether it works or doesn’t work for the good of society or to achieve specific objectives (not good for society) does information become knowledge. Information requires experience to become knowledge. Until then, it is just information. Many people believe this is a major part of what is wrong with the Obama Administration… it has information experts that have no idea they must first test information and understand how it works before it becomes knowledge. My personal opinion is that this administration knows precisely what it is doing.

I, for example, am very knowledgeable about certain things… I spent my life gathering information and putting that information to work, testing those “certain things.” As a result, I have a lot of knowledge about banking, for one thing. On the other hand, I am a functional idiot when it comes to anything involving mechanics. I could digest all of the information in the world about how the transmission on a car works, but my inability to put that information to work precludes my ever having knowledge about motors and transmissions – and all things mechanical. I might even be able to give someone else directions on how to repair that transmission (based on the information I have in my head), but my inability to understand it, build it, and test it will forever preclude me from having knowledge about it.

Understanding what I just said is the beginning step each of us must take to understand the difference between information and knowledge. Is it important for you to know that fact? Only if finding the truth is important to you. That is the same process one uses to find truth… information to knowledge to wisdom. One does not find solutions to important questions with information; solutions require knowledge. Without knowledge, it is impossible to know which questions to ask when you come to a crossroads. “Should I go forward? Should I turn left? Should I turn right? Do I need to backup a bit and start over?” And, if you do not ask the right questions, you rarely get the right answers.

Part of the reason for the confusion enveloping our society today – and it is a worldwide problem, not just American – is the lack of understanding about the differences between information and knowledge. We went through this same phenomenon when we moved from an economy driven by agriculture to an economy driven by manufacturing. To people who had traveled by horse and buggy all their lives, the Model T Ford looked like a huge leap into the future. It was just the beginning. No one realized the many products that would emerge as we went through the 100 years (from 1860 to 1960) of the industrial/manufacturing economic cycle. We moved from the horse and buggy to jumbo jets during that time. As one new product was created from information, knowledge was gained and another new product resulted… and another, and another, as that process repeated itself over and over again. We are only halfway through our technology, information and service economic cycle… there is much yet to come – and we should all hope what comes is based on knowledge, not information.

And then, of course, there is step three: Turning knowledge into wisdom. Very few people achieve that objective… and even fewer public servants.

What is wisdom?

There are many words that define wisdom… but defining it and gaining it are two different things. Probably the most well rounded explanation is that wisdom desires goodness for the total of society. But there are provisions in that sentence. One must be able to define goodness, for example. Is it to give a man a fish? Or is it to teach the man to fish? Is it a combination of both – to give him a fish while making sure he learns to fish… to understand the weaker side of human nature sufficiently to know that if it is allowed, the man will let you give him a fish as long as you are willing, even if it means weakening him.

Wisdom is being able to logically define the end of a behavior pattern (like the man/give a fish/teach to fish dilemma) based on true empathy for others – which involves an awareness of our own self weaknesses (our egos which sometimes enjoy having others dependent upon us). To achieve that, we must have self awareness (which means we must investigate our own psyches). Few people do that willingly. It’s a painful process. Wisdom means caring enough about those things dear to you to accept responsibility for your successes and your failures in life. When people have the capacity to reflect on life and find within that reflection the serene, and realize the importance of integrity and ethics, they develop compassion. Without compassion, it is impossible for human beings to exhibit wisdom. But again, one must be careful how the word “compassion” is defined.

As I said, there are many words that define wisdom. The question is, how does one get from knowledge to wisdom? Moving from knowledge to wisdom is a bit like moving from information to knowledge… but it’s a far more personal journey that requires a person to question every opinion held, every decision made, analyze every hope, and be willing to risk failure when to not take that risk would be damaging to the whole. It’s part of the reason soldiers are willing to lay down their lives for their countries.

One then utilizes the above standards to evaluate those things in life about which one has gained knowledge. It’s a lengthy process and usually requires a lifetime to achieve it… which is why so many tribal peoples hold the aged in such great respect. Not all aged people are wise – and they know that – but they also know it is rare for youth to achieve wisdom. They may have great information and, over time, great knowledge… but it takes a lifetime of living to develop wisdom.

My point is this: Conservatives and liberals see things differently – usually diametrically opposite one another. Why is it that people can see God’s reasons for almost anything they find distasteful, but conservatives see no reason for liberals, and liberals (even more vitriolic towards conservatives) see no reason for conservatives. Each has an immense dislike for the philosophies of the other, seeing no sense in them whatsoever. Do you really believe God put both philosophies here with no good purpose?

The next four articles in this series will explain what each group believes and why the other group finds it harmful. It explains the cycles through which America (and all nations) goes and points to the reasons for them. Did you know that liberals rule for 50 years to be followed by 50 years of conservative dominance? Take a look at American history – which is what the next four articles will do – and you will understand the reason for the opposing beliefs which dominate America’s 50 year cycles.

Problems with this philosophy arise only when one group does not stand up for the standards associated with the two personality styles… liberal and conservative. And that’s where we find ourselves today. That is where the madness of today’s society has taken us… where liberals aren’t liberals, they are socialists/communists, and where conservatives aren’t conservative, they’re fascist one-worlders.

We need to get back to basics. Or, we need to do away with the two political parties we currently have and create two others where liberals dominate their party and conservatives dominate theirs. If we do not, we, as a nation, are lost.

You probably won’t enjoy or find amusing this series of articles. They aren’t easy reading… but they can explain a great deal (if you’re willing to listen).

© 2012 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.

Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.

Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com

E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com