We are disgusted with the use of the word "politics" and "religion" in the same sentence. Everyone is all tied by political correctness or win votes or to defend their beliefs. I used to believe that politics and religion should remain in their separate corners - as different as night and day. But now I've been really involved in the political process, I can say this: there is no place where religion is very necessary in politics. And here's another thing: if all the politicians who constantly blabber about their faith, going to church, and the belief in the Bible (or whatever) actually acted in accordance with beliefs that certainly would not be in this pickle .

Politics has to be overflowing with religion; no proselytizing, preaching, mean, hard head, "my way or the highway" people with no sense trying to pawn the religion, but the real deal. Love, respect, decency, compassion, understanding and kindness: these are the characteristics of most spiritual practices. Unfortunately, it is often more "religious" people who have the least of these qualities. Why do not people just walk the walk, as my political heroes / spiritual: Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and the Dalai Lama. Are

The four titans of politics and religion.

Mother Teresa was a Catholic nun who devoted her life to serving those forgotten by society and government. She and her nuns worked on life in the slums of Calcutta, India, among the lepers and AIDS patients and devastating diseases. She needed $ 3.7 billion to do anything. Mother Teresa has just appeared, and got the job done. She was a political warrior, all 4'9 "and never asked for a vote or a contribution from the PAC. In 1982, at the height of the siege of Beirut, who rescued 37 children trapped in a front-line hospital by a temporary brokering a ceasefire between the Israeli army and Palestinian guerrillas. Can you imagine? Accompanied by Red Cross workers, traveled through the war zone in the devastated hospital to evacuate the young patients. When he announced his intention to save these children around the world went crazy. It is very dangerous! You can not go in there! A major military type he said gravely.

"Oh, Mother Teresa, can not be reached unless there is a cease-fire."

I guess he thought it was impossible. The story goes that my little hero nun looked at him, smiled and said:

"Well, then there will be a cease-fire."

And there it was. She was sure that the power of love and peace. Mother Teresa never judge anyone. Judge not lest ye be judged. Never wait for the policy to assist in its mission to serve the poor.

Mahatma Gandhi was a Hindu, a lawyer, devoted entirely to the will of God. Through his early resistance to tyranny through mass civil disobedience nonviolent freed India from British rule of imperialism. He lived a simple existence, Spartan and yet millions move towards freedom. From Hinduism teaches that all humanity is one undivided family (like Christianity and Buddhism), "pain in a limb is felt throughout the body."

Gandhi maintained at a level to speak only the truth. Do you think our leaders can take a page from that book?

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist preacher who became the leader of the civil rights movement in America. In the footsteps of Gandhi, King advocated nonviolent resistance but relentless injustice and tyranny. The protests were organized and directed literally changed the face of America. Although he never ran for office, Dr. King was a political and spiritual leader of international fame. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work and spent his life energizing and inspiring people to greatness. King speeches and rhetoric were blatantly religious.

"The purpose of life is to do the will of God," he said, "No matter what happens."

Finally, the Dalai Lama is the spiritual and political leader of Tibet. As the 14th Dalai Lama in the Buddhist tradition, His Holiness is believed to be the manifestation of compassion. in 1959 with the brutal repression of the Tibetan national uprising in Lhasa by Chinese troops, His Holiness was forced to flee into exile. It has never stopped working to free Tibet from Chinese oppression, and its ultimate goal is to democratize Tibet, allowing freedom of expression, belief, movement and assembly. He is revered worldwide as an ambassador for true peace, and has also received the Nobel Peace Prize. His Holiness has not sought nor advocated violence against the Chinese government. He has written books on leadership in business, so that compassion in the workplace, the connection between science and religion, and a wide range of other issues. The Dalai Lama describes himself as a simple Buddhist monk.

A Catholic nun, a Hindu lawyer, a Baptist preacher, and a Buddhist monk. Not a politician, and yet each one has had a huge impact worldwide. Each one lives a life fully consistent with his / spiritual principles. To tell the truth, living simply, they believed in selfless service to his people and the world. None of them tried to use religion as a weapon, like so many "religious" people do in our political system. All four of these mammoths walked the walk, and through them the world is much better.

Religion and politics? I hope and pray and work that these two worlds meet and merge. This would mean the end of politics as usual. We should public servants rather than politicians. We would like to have leaders who tell the truth, no matter what, and not act selfishly. We would have people walking in the footsteps of Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. King and the Dalai Lama. What a wonderful world.

The politics of God, like human politics is his way of governing us and urging us to follow their laws.

The fundamental laws of God are the Ten Commandments.

And the First Commandment forbids his people from being slaves of earthly governments.

The reason for this is simple. God only refers to his people in the form of agreements and contracts of all covenants are binding on both parties. And the purpose of all contracts to provide benefits to each party. And the contracts can only be made between people who are free to provide benefits to the other party to the contract. Enslaved people are not free to contract.

God, like everyone else in politics, should make offers to attract people to live under its law and governance. He frees people in the first commandment and therefore can not force anyone into a pact with him. Like human politicians can not force anyone to vote for their government.

And God and humans competing politicians and the promise of extravagant benefits to become the governor of the people.

They agreed that Joseph had saved from starvation by the confiscation of their land for Pharaoh and allowing them the privilege of living as tenants pay taxes on land formerly owned ...

You have saved his life, he told Joseph.

We are very grateful to you that we can be slaves to Pharaoh.

(Genesis 47:25)

And the Israelites industrious seemed to thrive until the king became jealous and fearful of their influence and ruthlessly tried to push ...


The Egyptians, therefore, feared that the Israelites were reduced to slavery cruel.

(Exodus12-13)

This is where God is the political and human rights is part of politics.

Earthly governments offer privileges may be revoked at the whim and discretion of granting the privilege.

In a contract, both parties are duty shall not revocable privileges promised by each party to the other.

And in every covenant with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden to your local bank on the corner, there is a penalty clause for breach of promise.

You local banker let you keep your house or your car while you make your monthly payments to the bank as you agree to a contract.

But if you stop making those payments, the penalty clause is activated and the bank take your car or house and all the benefits they provide these things. The banker, by contract can not take your property away from a mere whim.

God offers lavish benefits, contract and must provide and allow its people to maintain, unless you default on its promise to be faithful to his law, and promised ...

We will do what the Lord has told us.

(Exodus 24:3)

It is only for breach of his word which cause God is faithful to his contract and take action to enforce the penalty clause.

Pledged allegiance to the privileges of human politics does not guarantee that human government will continue to grant these privileges.

Politicians offer benefits elections and extravagant sweep without knowing much about exactly how they will "create jobs" or put "a chicken in every pot."

And they're after assuming office with all its commitments and pressures previously unknown can not grant these privileges ... at least not to the extent promised.

And so the human political, often has to backtrack on his campaign promises, because they need the help of others to fulfill their promises. And the other politicians can not be committed to the promises made.

God as creator, knows exactly what I can promise and deliver and deliver, if the people do not default on his faithfulness to his promise to keep His commandments.

He does not need anyone's help or approval to provide the benefits of their own creation to his chosen people.

Therefore, when the politics of God try to govern his people with the benefits it creates and grants them, tell the truth and offers to back up to a contract agrees to deliver.

When politicians make promises human, no matter how sincerely they have little control over the creation of the benefits promised to grant.

And this is how the politics of God differ from the policy of the pharaohs, ancient and modern.

But is not it ironic that many people have full faith in human political benefits, "but promised to find freedom under the law of God and that its benefits are expensive and unreliable ...

Why get us out of Egypt?

Did not I say in Egypt, when we said

"Leave us alone. Let us serve the Egyptians'?

Much better for us than the slaves of the Egyptians

to die in the desert.

(Exodus 14:11-12)

You may want to learn more about how this issue affects your ministry and religious education in the web address below.

Thomas Drummond, Ph.D. trained in clinical development, and neuropsychology. He has worked with the problems of clergy and religious of the Catholic Church for over 20 years. Most of his problems stemmed from the unfulfilled promises of God's law. They tried to evade the law of God through the definition of ministry in ways that were offenses against the law.

For many companies, the game of office politics is a fact of corporate life. Some groups seem to have cornered the market when it comes to feeding the rumors, backstabbing and manipulation. Do you have to assume the role of villain or mole in order to get ahead? Not always. With a little forethought, you can manage these antics office without losing their integrity or avoid altogether.
Politics in the office

When it comes to office politics you have two options: to participate or abstain. Depending on the dynamics of your office, either course of action could cost in the end. Start by taking a closer look at how your office and various groups of employees at the function.

A good place to start is to identify who is doing promotions. If co-workers with mediocre talent are rising through the ranks faster than others, may be partly because they've played the game of office politics as well. In this case, spend some time observing the interactions between the management team and managers and their direct reports. Find ways to align your strengths with what the administration seems to value. Approaching it this way helps you keep some integrity while finding ways to work within the system in his office.

If there is no clear relationship between office politics and what is really important to your job or career growth, do not participate just because of fit in. Engaging in order to be part of the group could ultimately become against you, especially if the game-playing that occurs predominantly at the level of peers and management seems to pay no mind.

Allies and enemies

If you are having difficulty understanding what they are playing politics and that the actors are, to see if you can identify a manager or other senior executive employee could serve as a mentor. Ideally, this person should sit on a higher level than they have been with the company long enough to know what's going on.

Choose someone who not only has a deep understanding of the inner workings of the company, but also has the experience to help you consolidate your career. In other words, do not approach a potential mentor asking them to teach what they know about the office. Instead, focus on building a real working relationship with them. If you've chosen wisely, your mentor likely to give you the scoop without having to ask.

The enemies are harder to detect. While some co-workers will undoubtedly face difficult, others may be more subtle. In fact, the enemy can not say anything at all, but the use of nonverbal cues such as eye rolling, deep sighs and fingers touching while talking. While these behaviors can be distracting, do not let that intimidate you. If you place in front of others, avoid the situation with a little light humor for the person in question.

Other rioters office can not interact with you at all, but repeating gossip or start rumors to curry favor. You can choose to ignore or can be direct and opposite the private person. Do not be aggressive or threatening, but in fact and allow the idea that in his mind, he has a good reason for his behavior. You could even become aware of behaviors that contribute to the problem themselves.

Stay out of the race

You can be on good terms with your co-workers, staying focused on their own work and staying out of politics in his office, but sometimes you'll find a coworker who will try to tempt you each in. These behaviors may be deliberate or unconscious, but there are some ways you can stay out of the fray and not damage the relationship:

* Make it a habit to be discreet and not repeat any secrets shared with you. Its aim is to gain and maintain the confidence of their colleagues, not betray it.
* Do not share information with others who do not want to share with everyone, unless you are sure you can trust the person absolutely.
* When conflicts arise, do not focus on the people involved, but direct your attention to the problem. If you are able to offer suggestions for a solution, do it, especially if the solution has the potential for win-win.
* Remember that office politics is almost always personal. They strive to maintain the personalities of their conversations as much as possible and stick to the facts.


Avoid gossip

One of the telltale signs of office politics is gossip. Again, you have two options: an excuse yourself from the conversation or change the subject. Note that in any way, it is likely that your coworkers will be taken by surprise. Once they understand that we are not willing to participate, there is a good chance you will not try to bring back.

Conflict Management

When co-workers argue, it is natural that the individuals involved to want to get the support of his part of the argument. Whenever possible, avoid taking sides in a conflict that is not involved. Acknowledge the feelings of his co-worker and let him or her to vent her frustrations, but if you want to rise above office politics, maintaining a neutral position. Keep this in mind when the conflict in question directly involves you. Note that when you're angry with, or just do not like someone, how easy it is in contradiction with his statements just because you can. One-raising co-worker may feel very good right now, but in the long run, strengthening the fight between you and gives you gossip in the office something to talk about.

As hard as it may be, to curb the desire to react defensively. Learn to listen to suggestions rather than focusing on the person doing the suggesting. You may find that there is some truth in what they are saying, even if delivery is insufficient. Similarly, defensive driving carefully co-workers. In general, the person more defensive, more may be feeling insecure (this applies to you).

When we visited London for the first time two years ago, I did not miss Kensington Gardens and the adjacent Hyde Park. I wanted to see Kensington Gardens because James Barrie, author of Peter Pan, had frequented the gardens and ponds in your home, just north of the park. And I wanted to visit the Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park on a Sunday morning.

Throughout Christendom, there is no finer symbol of freedom of expression that the Speakers' Corner. Since the 1870s, the socialists, radical priests, Muslim extremists, and crackpots of all varieties have been coming to this patch of grass for the exercise of their lungs for the benefit of anyone who will listen.

And so, one Sunday morning May found us gawking rudely to half dozen speakers, all standing on their soap boxes telling small groups of Londoners and tourists what was wrong with the world and how to fix it. In our search of local color (or "color" as the British curiously have), we got our money's worth at Speakers' Corner.

A colleague, a tireless talker, stood on a flag of the Socialist Party, looking like a socialist should look, preaching to a dozen listeners that Britain had fallen abjectly far from true socialism. Subsequent investigations identified him as Danny Lambert, a perennial candidate for local public office.

Another man in suit colors seemed to be speaking on behalf of an Islamic group of some kind. Posed that the United States in Iraq only because Americans hate Islam and because the U.S. government is controlled by the Jews (and not "Jews", but "the Jews", if you catch the distinction).

Another speaker was easily identifiable as a professional on the left. It was enthusiastically slandering George W. Bush and the United States, while keeping up the regime of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela bully as a model for the world to follow. We knew his type, experts in the following marching orders and stick to talking points. In the seventies, when we made the time on a campus in upstate New York, the university, its leftist counterparts were giving exactly the same speeches, except that it was Castro instead of Chavez. In the sixties, it was Mao, in the eighties, it was Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas.

But why should I try to describe the Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park, when you can not improve on PGDescripción Wodehouse in his story "Comrade Bingo", of Inimitable Jeeves The? The story begins, as Bertie Wooster is said,

in the park - at the end of Marble Arch - where all kinds of rare birds accumulate on Sunday afternoons and standing on soap boxes and make speeches.

At the edge of the mob away from me over a bunch of chappies hat missionary service begins outdoors, close at hand an atheist let her go with a good deal of vim, though not a bit impairment have a roof to his mouth, while in front of me was a small group of serious thinkers with a banner labeled "Heralds of the Red Dawn."

Not much has changed in the Speakers' Corner since Wodehouse published "Comrade Bingo" at The Strand in 1922.

But we still have with us the question of how to deal with highly offensive language. In Canada, as I said bitterly before, the government has installed speech police in a "human rights tribunals" with authority to punish those who offend the sensibilities of religious and ethnic groups.

Wodehouse's approach is better. In the history of Wodehouse, one of the Heralds of the Red Dawn begins to berate Bertie Wooster and his fellow aristocrat, Lord Bittlesham, with hilarious insults. But instead of complaining that there are no laws against such diatribes, Lord Bittlesham simply gives back:

"Come away, Mr. Wooster," he said. "I am the last man to oppose the right of free speech, but I refuse to listen to this vulgar abuse any longer."

Wodehouse was to politics as a eunuch is sex, but its policy on offensive hate groups and authority figures can not be improved. When not ignore (like his character Lord Bittlesham), which mocked them mercilessly. The closest Wodehouse never got to a political issue was the creation of Roderick Spode, an enemy of Bertie Wooster in several stories, most memorably in Wodehouse's masterpiece The Code of Wooster, written during World War II.

In the 1920s, Wodehouse surely ran into people like the Heralds of the Red Dawn "Comrade Bingo," infatuated with Russian socialism. In the 1930s, Wodehouse must have looked with suspicion, as many in England were attracted by Hitler's National Socialism. One person was mistaken as Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists, whom Roderick Spode is modeled Wodehouse. Spode is a flamboyant figure with a Hitler mustache who loves to hear his own voice, makes his servile followers wear black pants, and dreams of becoming a dictator.

No amount of laws against fascist ideology could have damaged the cause of fascism more effectively than the kind of mockery and ridicule that Wodehouse Roderick Spode exerted. The thought police should learn a lesson from Wodehouse.

"What curse these social distinctions. Should be abolished. I remember saying that Karl Marx, and thought it might be an idea for a book on it." - PG Wodehouse, in his novel Quick Service

How many of you have heard positive political expression? This is the opposite negative politics and I think you can see a change in the political position and behavior as their transfer to the highest levels in almost any organization.

As you climb the corporate ladder, or any organizational ladder, you'll find that people who are higher in the upper rarely engaged in what I consider to be negative politicking. Negative politics is that the manifesto "backstabbing" occurs. That's where people drop hints about the shortcomings of people or errors. That's where people in the meetings of other places, without notice. People who have no experience in the dynamics of the organization have not yet learned the risk of gossip in the queue, or talking to someone. They mistakenly believe that by eliminating the race to the bottom, will rise. Oh, how true.

The people who get up have learned the ability to promote a positive manner. In other words, there are things wrong with most people. That's what people at lower levels of organizations do. Instead, work together and do positive things for other people who deserve it.

What I am talking about is the positive politics. You can recognize it when you see it. For example, a group of people who are working together, a valuable project is available. And suddenly, one of those people is given the project by another person who has ever worked. This project is not only visible reward for excellent previous work, may be the result of partnerships built with the group leader.

This is a reality in America of the organization, whether corporate or not. What we get in position to do so is to grant that kind of positive visibility with others, and ultimately be the beneficiary of it too.

We want to position to make available opportunities for positive people within our organizations. We do this regularly. We want to hand things instead of keeping it selfishly for ourselves. These things come back tenfold classes to people who do.

This strategy not only project-based, can be as simple as filling out a job well done to senior executives. Behaviors sincere, selfless and altruistic are noticed, and rewarded the most times.

Rarely forget the time they were uncomfortable and embarrassed cornered in an environment of the organization. Playing a long-term resistance to help that person. The opposite is true. I'm sure each of you can think of a time someone did something positive for yourself and your career and how grateful she was. And from that moment, if that person asks you to do anything, you will do for them. Well, this is how politics works good. And that's how we create our own fate in our organizational structures.

Therefore, the negative politicking, we do not betray people for the things we've done wrong. That actually makes the behavior of the "rat" look even worse than "the victim". That the behavior that occurs with people at the lower end of their organizations.

What we do is to do positive things for others. And this is how we can promote the objectives of the organization, and hopefully find it for ourselves. Because most of the good deeds are returned.

What role do new media and powerful in politics? The effects of short and long term can not be denied. But the new media offer us sound political information, or just entertain us for profit and ratings?

The new media

Occasionally, the system of the media in the U.S. States experiments significant transformations that signal a new level in its evolution. A broad recognition of the role of new media on the political scene came during the 1992 presidential campaign. The candidates met to talk radio, television, news magazine programs and the Internet. While the media offers many options to offer their points of view, the debate as to place or not the information content or entertainment had begun.


Talk Radio

If there has been a form of communication that has become emblematic of the new media is radio. Radio used to be the "night shift" of the airways. Radio reinvented itself. Radio became an important forum for candidates in 1992. President George H. Bush met with conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. In 1994, nine talk radio hosts ran for statewide office or local. Most were unsuccessful, but their positions on the radio gave them legitimacy as
candidates.

Other unsuccessful candidates like former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and New York Mayor Ed Koch moved to jobs locally or nationally speaking, host of the show. Radio was a political platform. The suit in U.S. Ratings were up. Profits were rising. Radio had become a force to be reckoned with.

TV

Cable TV opened the airways to the beginning of opportunities for the media. Time intervals were filled with talk shows and news programs that you can tune in around the clock. The television media rapidly improved its position in the political process. Politicians and the press could not stop taking them seriously. One of the criticisms imposed was that the television media trivialize serious problems of government by mixing politics with entertainment. All political issues at hand can now be analyzed and examined the clock on cable news. Campaigns had to take a second look on the role of media in politics. The media could be a support tool or a thorn in the side. Campaign strategy had to be changed. The power of television can not be denied.

Internet

Twenty five years ago the term "modern" does not even appear in the dictionary. The modems connect people to online computer services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, America Online or MSN, and hundreds of thousands of websites around the world and home pages. Increasingly, the Internet has become a tool of political communication. In the network can get political information, express political opinion and mobilize voters and political leaders. You can also make political donations. This years presidential race, candidates have raised literally millions of dollars online. The web has become an electronic town hall. In a short time, the web has become a major player in the new media.

Conclusion

The media has found its niche in today's politics. Rather, his talk shows, television or the Internet, have laid the foundation, build a platform from which the voice of his social agenda and to strengthen their political power. How much of that voice is the quality of content is still under debate. One thing is certain, if you want to succeed in politics, it will not hurt to have the media in his corner.

"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and secondly, it forces it to control itself." - Alexander Hamilton

This piece, the second of a two-part series, are shown in the left part to the demise of the Federalist Party and the rise of Democratic-Republican Party. Next, explore the history of other American political parties until today.

The party system in America was born as the Federalists, for central government and industry, and the Anti-Federalists, in favor of states' rights and agriculture, fighting for power. As part of the agreement that ended with the ratification of the Constitution, the two parties agreed that an elected body to choose the President and Vice President, not the people themselves. This was the method of electing the President until 1824, when the system we have now launched. George Washington was elected unanimously by the electoral vote as the first president and John Adams was his vice president.

The disappearance of the Federalists "was launched in 1790. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson took opposite sides in the formation of a central bank and the beginning of a national debt. Jefferson became the leader of what became the Democratic-Republican Party denouncing the Federalists no better than the king himself. Washington and Adams were elected again, and hung the Federalists in power. However, the ingredients of the first true American heavyweight fight was taking place. At the corner of the champion, was John Adams for president representing the Federalists. In the challenger's corner, were Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican Party. Washington decided to retire as his government was harshly criticized by the policy. In the next election, Adams received 71 electoral votes to 68 for Jefferson. For both unanimous choices harmonious political existence! The result was that Adams and Jefferson became president he became Vice President.

In 1800, Republican and Democratic parties remained aligned with the Republican Party getting stronger. As a result, the federal government grew stronger, too. The government was growing in the field of energy as well. The "Sedition Act", which punishes "any written false, scandalous or malicious against the government of the United States, or either House of Congress or the President," was considered an act of despotism. Jefferson and the Republicans won in 1800 and Aaron Burr, the Democratic Party leader, became Vice President. The Federalist Party was gone. The Democratic Republic - Republican Party, for the moment was to reign supreme. The effort to strengthen the central government too much power at the expense of the states had come to nothing, and the Federalists, as a well-defined parts, gradually disappeared from existence.

With the Democratic-Republican Party firmly in power, many laws were repealed unpopular, and the federal government went about their business. Over the next 30 years, the Democratic-Republican Party gradually became two separate parties.

In 1834, as the Republican National Party faded into the background, the Whig Party was born with leaders like Daniel Webster, who favored the power of Congress over presidential power. The Whigs wanted to expand the national government (and country) to the west. In 1840, the first Whig president, William Henry Harrison, was elected. The last Whig president, Zachary Taylor, was elected in 1848. The Whigs were not there for long. Mediocre comedies on television has lasted longer than the Whigs. In 1854, the Republican Party reformed, strengthened by the support of the Whigs and ragged soldiers free and independent.

In 1860, the issue of rights and slavery dominated the political landscape. The country was divided North and South. The Democratic Party, literally split in two, like the nation a year later. Southern Democrats favored federal protection of slavery in western territories, the Northern Democrats were not. They wanted the Supreme Court to handle the problem. This led to the election of a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who firmly believed that the Union is held together by the federal government at all costs. His policies and opposing views to the nation's blood was divided, division, four-year civil war that lasted from 1861 to 1865. The years of Reconstruction that followed the southern highlands of losing most of his political power for decades to come.

By the 1890s, Democratic and Republican parties, mostly as we know today were firmly entrenched as the two main political parties that controlled American politics. The Republicans became known as the Conservative Party or the right, and Democrats became known as the Liberal Party or the left. The parties themselves are entrenched in their position, becoming more and more in his philosophy, increasingly concerned about the Republican or Democratic values ​​and less concerned about the values ​​of the American people they governed. The gap between the party's values ​​and American values ​​varied so widely that Teddy Roosevelt broke his own separate party in the elections of 1912.

Teddy Roosevelt was a negative factor very important American presidential election in 1912, four years after he refused to run for president for a period of 3 rd. He found the president's policy of his own party, William Howard Taft, being too conservative for his taste. After a break at the Republican convention, Teddy formed Bull Moose Party and had enough votes to allow Taft Republicans that the Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson won the presidency.

Little in the system of two political parties has changed over the past 100 years since the election of 1912, with the exception of an occasional independent like Ross Perot, who appeared in the 1980 and 1990 to make some noise, until too little. CNBC financial analyst Rick Santelli hit a nerve in a broadcast after the 2008 financial crisis erupted. Annoyed with more successful rescues of people who bought houses they could not afford and those who finance those houses, Santelli said: "We are thinking about having a Chicago Tea Party in July! All you capitalists that want to appear in Lake Michigan I am organizing a party! "

The Tea Party movement was born. Despite Santelli is not affiliated with the Tea Party directly, he said some things that many Americans felt at the time. Many like Santelli vocal tired of big government and special interest politicians taking money from taxes and throw all the problems in the hope of fixing it. Santelli and traders on the floor in the program expressed that they were tired of a government that perpetuates itself for the sake of government rather than for the good of his people. The Founding Fathers were right, the danger of any political system, however well intentioned, is going to grow to a point where your only concern is to maintain political power at any cost.

The Obama administration came in preaching change and are not the problem. Even if they really believed they could meet changed when he took office two-party systems do not. Policy change that would allow a shift in the balance of power. That has not happened in this country since the Whigs threw a curve ball to the grid at the back of this country have a policy framework in 1840. However, the fact is that change can be a good thing. The Founding Fathers called for a change. A new voice or see item could help the country to a new perspective. It is obvious that the Tea Party has gained a lot of people involved in politics who have never participated before. People, plus more to engage with different perspectives and different voices would be better. That's what democracy is all about. Of self-government is also involved and therefore equally represented.

The Tea Party has grown in its ranks, as members of the protests began training a couple of weeks after the Santelli rant. Since then, the fledgling movement has grown rapidly in the United States, sponsoring hundreds of protests, boasting millions of members, and affect the 2010 elections that swung the balance of power, once more than one party, the Democratic Party, two parties. The Tea Party, however, is not yet an official party policy in the United States. The line between autonomy and be ruled by a fine line that makes the project of the founding fathers did to the Constitution so miraculous. However, even they knew it would take an effort, perseverance, vigilance and participation to make a true work Democratic Republic.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said right after the Constitution was ratified, "Well, doctor, what do we have? A republic or a monarchy? A republic, if you can keep. "With greater participation of the American people and more effort on the part of the governed, the United States will remain a republic for many years to come, but it is not politics or political parties that make America strong is the people who make the nation who believe in the freedom struggle and that what is right. Sometimes you only need a new voice to remind each and every one of them.

As to what Ben Franklin would think of the Republic today and if all Americans should be aware of and involved in politics in the nation to maintain, I think Ben might have said, "Let's have a cup of tea and talk about it. With a little good open honest conversation, there's a consensus to find that it can meet all of us! "On the other hand, then, it always was penny wise and pound with intelligence!

I hope that you please consider all this and think about it.

For many months I have read countless articles written by experienced sign makers, political consultants and graphic artists offer their opinion on what ingredients go to make the perfect, the vote getting political yard sign. The "seasoning" that go in the recipe includes some sources, a variety of colors, along with the size of the sign only right policy. Combine that with the strategic placement of each sign and "poof" the candidate is instantly recognized as a serious contender.

That is, until the candidate wakes up the next morning only to see his political backyard perfect sign surrounded by what appears to be dozens of new political signs off the side of his signature and, often hiding their signs. His few hours of fame as a serious contender flows unnoticed in the sea of ​​political signs. In the South there is a plant called kudzu annoying that the legend says that you can watch them grow literally watch them grow before your eyes. Stop at any street corner and see the political signs grow and grow and grow right in front of your eyes.

One fact remains that no matter how many signs they have at least some sign notices, which has lost money. They say size matters so it is natural that the field is full of people to go with more signs. And indeed, it can be a good direction. But before you lay down your hard earned cash for larger signs to close your eyes and visualize your own standing proudly with his big sign your name in lights again. Then close your eyes and visualize what will be right next to the large sign in a matter of days. You guessed it. A sign larger and probably better than your brand new sign. And The Beat Goes On!

What is the penalty?

First, recognize that the source you choose, the color of the signal, the size of your sign and where you put your sign is not in the short term, be different ... repeat no different than the host of other candidates.

Secondly, unless there is a huge war chest and donors a mile long, you can not win the battle for the game to see who has the most signs. After all, you now have twice the number of signs crammed with a dozen others in every corner of the city. 2 = 2 = 100?

Third ... and this is the ticket. Great signs are striking. "Anyone who is a hunter, or even play hide and seek as a child, knows that it is easier to detect its" prey "if it is moving. "Scientific movement causes the eye to go to the source of motion. In short, if the sign is moved, the eyes of voters will be attracted by your sign, your name will be recognized and most important to remember that the votes are cast .

There are indications that the use of a sign hanging participation that allows the signal to dance and spin. Judging people in their political campaign and see the difference.

SignThatSpin.com has revolutionized the political sign business that offers a variety of eye-catching signs with exclusive SignsThatSpin.com game hanging signs. The signs are very affordable, easy to install and you will name out in the crowd. Even in a "sea of ​​signs" sign noticed.

Receive the political campaign ads Spin political signs

Often, volunteers are asked to place political signs in garden locations specified by a candidate, but does not provide advice on how best to place them to maximize their effectiveness. Using some important tips can increase the visibility of the signal and improve the chances for people to remember the name on the poster.
The angle of correct sign

The placement of signs at an angle of approximately 90 degrees from the nearby road will allow drivers to start reading the signs of the elections as soon as possible. Drivers often have only a few seconds of time to take a look at a sample and digest the message, so that the placement of election signs at an optimal angle increases the chances that you read.

Do not try to capture the attention of all traffic on the street. When the signs of the elections are placed at the corners, your place for an ideal situation for a sense of movement and not four. If volunteers are trying to attract the attention of everyone driving on the street, the signal will probably be difficult for everyone to read and the candidate will not be able to take advantage of an excellent location. Spend the extra money and the placement of election signs on every corner is an excellent strategy.

Placement height - Patio political signs

Experts recommend placing the signs of the choice of half a foot to a foot of soil. Attached to the sign posts or fences and placed at the top are not usually safe for a driver to read while traveling on the road.

Study area and determine the probability that the sign is stolen or damaged. Find out if there is a history of damage in particular neighborhoods sign of his constituency. You can still place election signs in the area, but do not place great signs of expensive material. Placing your company in the areas of public property will increase the chances of it not being removed.

Special purpose Voters

Sign is not enough place in heavy traffic areas. If you want to draw the attention of young voters place political signs near shopping centers and in their entries. Place at the nearby schools and areas of the city that is known about the nightlife.

Their position in office centers to increase name recognition for candidates with business people. Located close to schools will increase name recognition with adults who take their children to school. Boards of the most popular films and other grocery stores are great locations. The malls are good places when targeting women voters.

Highway distance

Consult local authorities about the proximity of political yard signs can be on the road. Most cities require signs of having more than 10 feet from the road. Also, if placed in the royal gardens in either public or private property keep in mind that the grass was cut once in a while and signs may be damaged or removed from the earth.

Selection of high-traffic locations and appropriate places for target groups and correctly position the election signs can significantly increase the number of people will notice the signs and increase the readability of the same. It is important that staff and volunteers be trained to effectively implement political yard signs in order to increase the recognition of a candidate's name.

Agglutination

Often, the signals are placed in groups of three or four properties in a row can give the impression that there are more supporters. This concept of grouping signs together can also make fewer signs seem more than what actually exists. If you receive a yard sign application for a residence sure to ask the residence of both sides for their assistance in the placement of campaign sign.

Dandelion Signs

Each spring, seemingly overnight, the green landscape changes a sea of ​​yellow spots as the dandelion flower. The reason for this change in nature is so remarkable, is because it occurs quite abruptly. The same technique can be applied to how to put his signature courtyard. Candidates who gradually release their signs are missing a huge part of the impact of a political sign or business can have.

The best way to capture the attention of people with their signs is to allocate 90% of all towns in the sale sign, before signing up to go. Then in one night to get all the volunteers that you can gather together and make the most signs up all at once. The next morning, his constituents drive to work to realize the enormous change in the landscape. Suddenly they want to know, what this new candidate for all, and why so many people rally behind them. First impressions are everything, and this can be an effective "wake-up call" not only to voters, but their opponents, and opponents tend to make decisions shaken irrational.

Synchronization

Probably the most frequently ask the question that we hear is: "How far should I put my signature on the earth." While consulting the community has debated this issue for years to conclude that most want your signature is released when people have their minds on the election. For most elections in this way signs should go up about 30-40 days before early voting. (For elections that do not have early voting 30-40 days of the current choice) If the signals are put out long before these people start to get used to them and they forget what they're even on. Signs posted 20 days long after the effectiveness loose to become household names.

Welcome to Kreitlow Corner