Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Irene A. Majchrzak
When we worry about how long our retirement income will last, we consider so many factors. The current economy is causing a drain on 401(k)'s and IRA's. So we have become much more cautious about withdrawing money to use it as part of our pensions. Now we are limited to living within the Social Security benefits of those 65 and older. Social Security is in the process of being changed to stop the cost of living benefits for the next couple of years, as well.
The Dow Jones continues to fluctuate between 9200 and 9500 for almost all of 2009, so it will be difficult to feel confident that we will be accessing our savings for any big ticket items like a new car or vacations within the near future. The unemployment rate is over 9% and still rising. This emphasizes the concern that the country is not really coming out of the recession as is being argued by many economists.
As my friends and I discussed the impact of inflation I wonder if the inflation level will rise from the 3% that I routinely use to determine the growth of liabilities and consumer goods for my clients, as I help them with their retirement planning.
I ask myself should I start using 4% as a better indicator of the amount of savings my clients will need at retirement? As a result I went on to Google and entered "current inflation rate" and what I found was very surprising and worthwhile discussing for all of us trying to make sense of the economy.
While all of us have heard about inflation and recognize that when it occurs it could cause problems for us, personally. What we may not have is an easy definition that describes inflation as occurring when money becomes relatively less valuable than goods.
Knowing this I expected to see inflation rising over the past few months but instead, since March, 2009 our economy has been in continued periods of deflation. September's number will be due out on October 15^th and it is likely that the trend of deflation will continue.
So now I went back to Google and asked what causes deflation? **According to Kimberly Amadeo of _About.com_ deflation is defined as the time that "asset and consumer prices continue to fall." This may seem like a great thing to consumers, because it may seem a positive concept that consumer prices are becoming more affordable, except that the cause for deflation is a long-term drop in demand.
Unfortunately as Ms. Amadeo continues, "a drop in demand means that a recession is already underway, with job losses, declining wages, and an ongoing decline in the value of your home and your stock portfolio. Deflation is a result of businesses dropping prices in a desperate attempt to get people to buy their products.
Officially, deflation is measured by a decrease in the Consumer price index. However the index does not measure stock prices which retirees use to fund purchases and businesses use to fund growth."
Can Anything Be Done About Deflation?
Google.com has become my research source. In seeking the answer to the prevention and possibly a cure for deflation many interesting perspectives were presented. The table presented on _Inflation Data.com_ shows the drop in the inflation rate in Dec./08 and continuing into Jan. and Feb./09 and the subsequent rate of deflation often linked to recessions, that started in Mar/09.
Inflation is defined in the _Merriam Webster Dictionary_ as a continuing rise in the general prices due to an increase in the volume of money and credit with less goods and services available for purchase. Deflation seems to be caused by a long term drop in demand for goods. Of course this is only a part of the story. We need to ask ourselves why is there a drop in demand for goods?
Mike Moffatt writing on "What is Deflation and How Can It Be Prevented" @ _About._com. gives us further insights. Mike quotes Colin Asher speaking to _Radio Free Europe_, and Mark Gongloff @ _CNN Money_.
Colin Asher, an economist at Nomura Securities, told _Radio Free Europe_ that the problem with deflation is that "in deflation [there's] a declining spiral. Businesses make less profits so they cut back [on] employment. People feel less like spending money. Businesses then don't make any profits and everything works itself into a declining spiral." Deflation also has a psychological element as it "becomes rooted in peoples' psychologies and becomes self-perpetuating. Consumers are discouraged from buying expensive items like automobiles or homes because they know those things will be cheaper in the future."
Mark Gongloff at _CNN Money_ agrees with these opinions. Gongloff explains that "when prices fall simply because people have no desire to buy -- leading to a vicious cycle of consumers postponing spending because they believe prices will fall further -- then businesses can't make a profit or pay off their debts, leading them to cut production and workers, leading to lower demand for goods, which leads to even lower prices."
So the recession is the fault of the consumer? Or could it be caused by the continued increase in printing money whenever the government needs more for its own special use. Glen Beck @ Glenbeck.com displayed a graph that outlines the spending that has taken place in America. In 1971 President Nixon decided to stop using the gold standard to back our money. Over the ensuing years the outpouring of printed money being pumped into the economy will so devalue our dollar as to be almost worthless.
The consumer anxiety is this. We are concerned about the effect of inflation and deflation on our lifestyles. We are concerned about the level of our retirement funds and the slow return to the pre-October 2008 level. What if we continue to withdraw funds to augment our Social Security or pensions and the recession finally ends after we have drained our savings. As the economy surges forward the young, with jobs, will need to start over and the elderly on fixed incomes, can become greeters.
We are also, concerned about the continued recession no matter that many economists say the US economy is finally coming out of the recession. Look at the numbers and decide for yourself. We are still seeing unreasonable growth in unemployment numbers and fewer new jobs being developed except in bigger government or in lower paying homecare fields.
What is the answer? The job of preventing recessions over the past few years lies with the Federal Reserve Bank and the Federal Government. Decreasing the interest rates has helped to increase the supply of money into the economy. Lowering interest rates has worked in the past but now the interest rates are already low and the feds hesitate to cut the rates further.
The government can help by putting more money into the economy by lowering taxes and increasing government spending with a temporary deficit. The government is already printing money for many new ideas such as the stimulus package for AIG and loaning money to the banks and the auto industry thus causing a real deficit, not a temporary one.
Why not lower taxes? This would benefit the common people not only the banks and corporations. Why not beg the feds to print more money to be used to buy bonds to decrease our interest rates? Is it such a big deal to cut the rate by 1/8^th of a percent to help the economy? The feds have usually lowered the rates by 1/4% or greater.
Last quarter the feds decided against cutting the interest rate. When economists talk about "printing more money" and "the Fed lowering interest rates" they're talking about the same thing. The Government is printing money but not reducing taxes or lowering interest rates. While already low, there is still room to lower them further, so using this policy to fight deflation will support growth in the economy.
About the Author:
Irene A. Majchrzak helps people retire debt-free with a sense of well-being and the freedom to have the things they want. Get her free ebook, Debt Free to Retire, by going to http://debtfreetoretire.com
Read more Articles written by Irene A. Majchrzak.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Government Grant Writing: Doing It Yourself
Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Brendon Turner
Chances are, if you're looking for a grant to start up your small business or not-for-profit organization, you don't have the money to hire grant writers. A few will work with the promise of payment once the grant money comes in, but these are few and far between. The alternative? Do the government grant writing yourself.
Benefits of DIY Government Grant Writing
You'll find that there are a number of reasons to learn how to apply for grants yourself. Obviously, you can save quite a bit of money during the startup period when most businesses are looking to save money. Often, it's best for the business owner or one of the partners to take on as much of the grunt work as possible until the funding comes through. This will allow you to spend nothing, apart from time.
In addition, you can tailor each application to the government grant that you are applying for. With grant writers, this would be extra. Doing the writing yourself lets you make changes quickly and easily, based on which funding option you are doing the grant proposal for.
How to Write a Grant Proposal
There's a reason grant writers are expensive. It can be difficult to figure out how to write a great proposal if you don't know what you're doing. There are many areas that need to be covered, including budgets, timelines and project descriptions. It can be very confusing at first glance, but it is also very important that you include all the information needed or you could lose out on a chance to get grant money for your business or organization.
The best way to ensure that you are doing everything correctly is to get some help. Government grant writing isn't like writing an article or a letter, you need to include very specific, very detailed information so the decision makers have everything they need in order to choose you to receive the money. Most people prefer to keep their tips for success a secret, but you can still learn how to write a successful proposal and get the most out of your application.
Looking at sample applications can be a huge help and will let you style your own paperwork after something that has already been successful. While you certainly don't want to copy, you should get a feel for what is required when it comes to government grants. Writing your own proposals can save you a lot of time and money, so it is certainly worth looking into.
About the Author:
If you need more help with government grants writing, then you should check out Government Grants Source. The site features a full database of government grants, as well as tutorials and samples to help you write the best proposal possible. Written by Brendon Turner for http://www.governmentgrantsource.net/
Read more of Brendon Turner's articles.
Copyright © 2009 Brendon Turner
Chances are, if you're looking for a grant to start up your small business or not-for-profit organization, you don't have the money to hire grant writers. A few will work with the promise of payment once the grant money comes in, but these are few and far between. The alternative? Do the government grant writing yourself.
Benefits of DIY Government Grant Writing
You'll find that there are a number of reasons to learn how to apply for grants yourself. Obviously, you can save quite a bit of money during the startup period when most businesses are looking to save money. Often, it's best for the business owner or one of the partners to take on as much of the grunt work as possible until the funding comes through. This will allow you to spend nothing, apart from time.
In addition, you can tailor each application to the government grant that you are applying for. With grant writers, this would be extra. Doing the writing yourself lets you make changes quickly and easily, based on which funding option you are doing the grant proposal for.
How to Write a Grant Proposal
There's a reason grant writers are expensive. It can be difficult to figure out how to write a great proposal if you don't know what you're doing. There are many areas that need to be covered, including budgets, timelines and project descriptions. It can be very confusing at first glance, but it is also very important that you include all the information needed or you could lose out on a chance to get grant money for your business or organization.
The best way to ensure that you are doing everything correctly is to get some help. Government grant writing isn't like writing an article or a letter, you need to include very specific, very detailed information so the decision makers have everything they need in order to choose you to receive the money. Most people prefer to keep their tips for success a secret, but you can still learn how to write a successful proposal and get the most out of your application.
Looking at sample applications can be a huge help and will let you style your own paperwork after something that has already been successful. While you certainly don't want to copy, you should get a feel for what is required when it comes to government grants. Writing your own proposals can save you a lot of time and money, so it is certainly worth looking into.
About the Author:
If you need more help with government grants writing, then you should check out Government Grants Source. The site features a full database of government grants, as well as tutorials and samples to help you write the best proposal possible. Written by Brendon Turner for http://www.governmentgrantsource.net/
Read more of Brendon Turner's articles.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Pearl Jam Sells Out
Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Ryan Hogan
When fans, especially those of the casual variety, think of Pearl Jam they generally conjure up an image of a "fight the power" type of band who's politically active and bent on not succumbing to the "Man" running the music industry.
That's pretty much the band's reputation, just ask anyone with Pearl Jam concert tickets.
In 2006, Rolling Stone magazine wrote that Pearl Jam had "spent much of the past decade deliberately tearing apart their own fame. " The band stopped making both television appearances and music videos. Meanwhile, they unsuccessfully took on Ticketmaster.
The band has always been politically active. They support the pro-choice movement, environment and wildlife protection groups (the band has a carbon neutral policy), and the Green Party (suppress chuckle now).
This may come as a shock, but they weren't fans of George W. Bush.
In addition, Pearl Jam has performed in concerts benefiting the U.N.'s fight against world hunger, victims of Hurricane Katrina, Habitat for Humanity and the American Red Cross.
It's clear that Pearl Jam is all about saving this and protecting that and fighting this injustice and battling that travesty. However, if you look around, this seemingly socially progressive juggernaut is in cahoots with a plethora of big-time corporations.
In fact, Pearl Jam is hawking more products than Peyton Manning.
Their upcoming ninth studio album, Backspacer, set to be released September 20th, is being sold exclusively at Target (and indie retailers but who goes to them anymore).
You can also download the album from the iTunes Music Store (Apple). Overseas, album is being distributed by Universal Music (Vivendi).
Recently, the band has joined up with Verizon's V Cast platform to offer fans access to Pearl Jam content.
Backspacer uses Sony technology to house extra material and the entire album with get the full DLC Rock Band 2 treatment, possibly paving the way for a Pearl Jam Rock Band game (Electronic Arts) in 2010.
In the 1990's, Kurt Cobain accused the band of being sellouts but he probably didn't imagine the band would ever sell out to an army of corporations.
Cobain was referring to the way the band was selling albums, t-shirts and concert tour tickets. He was not referring to the band's vertical commercial integration with consumer oriented media synergy (okay, we made that up but you get our point).
Now you might argue that using Sony's software or being immortalized by Rock Band doesn't make one a sellout. That's true, but the more corporations you do business with and the more politically active you are, the greater the risk of biting the hand that feeds.
What is the target of most political activism? It's the government and corporations. Take the environment for example. It's not being polluted by orphans and puppy dogs. It's being polluted by big business. Some of which would love to have Pearl Jam pimp their products.
The only difference between bands that sell out and bands that don't sell out is the bands that didn't sell out were never given the chance. Face it, selling out is as American as apple pie and a 401k plan.
If I was in a band as big as Pearl Jam I would be selling out faster than you can say "I'm going to Disneyland."
I would allow my songs to be used as jingles for enriched uranium if they paid me enough.
If my manager didn't have my cheesy, pensive single playing at the end of every emotional episode of every two-bit drama on television I would have her fired.
If they gave me a good enough deal, I would get a Ticketmaster tramp stamp.
Before you start accusing me or Pearl Jam of being greedy "you know whats," stop and think for a moment how expensive it is to live. Then think of how expensive it is for Pearl Jam to live. They have kids, mortgages, college tuitions, wives who have to shop, mistresses who need apartments, and those prescription drugs don't buy themselves.
Sure there are bands that walk the walk and wouldn't take a dime from a corporation to save a spotted owl. But those bands sell 11 albums a year and play for 100 fans at a venue that doubles as a furniture store.
The best way for Pearl Jam to spread their message and affect change is by reaching as many people as possible. Sometimes that involves producing albums, sometimes that involves selling concert tickets and sometimes that involves working with corporate America.
After all, the best way to bring down the machine is from within. Fight the power and pass me my iPhone.
Copyright 2009, ClickItTicket.com
About the Author:
Ryan Hogan is a writer for the ClickitTicket sports and music blog. At ClickitTicket.com you'll find concert tickets to purchase like Pearl Jam tickets. Find a huge selection of event tickets and a wealth of original entertainment content at http://www.ClickitTicket.com/
Read more of Ryan Hogan's articles.
Copyright © 2009 Ryan Hogan
When fans, especially those of the casual variety, think of Pearl Jam they generally conjure up an image of a "fight the power" type of band who's politically active and bent on not succumbing to the "Man" running the music industry.
That's pretty much the band's reputation, just ask anyone with Pearl Jam concert tickets.
In 2006, Rolling Stone magazine wrote that Pearl Jam had "spent much of the past decade deliberately tearing apart their own fame. " The band stopped making both television appearances and music videos. Meanwhile, they unsuccessfully took on Ticketmaster.
The band has always been politically active. They support the pro-choice movement, environment and wildlife protection groups (the band has a carbon neutral policy), and the Green Party (suppress chuckle now).
This may come as a shock, but they weren't fans of George W. Bush.
In addition, Pearl Jam has performed in concerts benefiting the U.N.'s fight against world hunger, victims of Hurricane Katrina, Habitat for Humanity and the American Red Cross.
It's clear that Pearl Jam is all about saving this and protecting that and fighting this injustice and battling that travesty. However, if you look around, this seemingly socially progressive juggernaut is in cahoots with a plethora of big-time corporations.
In fact, Pearl Jam is hawking more products than Peyton Manning.
Their upcoming ninth studio album, Backspacer, set to be released September 20th, is being sold exclusively at Target (and indie retailers but who goes to them anymore).
You can also download the album from the iTunes Music Store (Apple). Overseas, album is being distributed by Universal Music (Vivendi).
Recently, the band has joined up with Verizon's V Cast platform to offer fans access to Pearl Jam content.
Backspacer uses Sony technology to house extra material and the entire album with get the full DLC Rock Band 2 treatment, possibly paving the way for a Pearl Jam Rock Band game (Electronic Arts) in 2010.
In the 1990's, Kurt Cobain accused the band of being sellouts but he probably didn't imagine the band would ever sell out to an army of corporations.
Cobain was referring to the way the band was selling albums, t-shirts and concert tour tickets. He was not referring to the band's vertical commercial integration with consumer oriented media synergy (okay, we made that up but you get our point).
Now you might argue that using Sony's software or being immortalized by Rock Band doesn't make one a sellout. That's true, but the more corporations you do business with and the more politically active you are, the greater the risk of biting the hand that feeds.
What is the target of most political activism? It's the government and corporations. Take the environment for example. It's not being polluted by orphans and puppy dogs. It's being polluted by big business. Some of which would love to have Pearl Jam pimp their products.
The only difference between bands that sell out and bands that don't sell out is the bands that didn't sell out were never given the chance. Face it, selling out is as American as apple pie and a 401k plan.
If I was in a band as big as Pearl Jam I would be selling out faster than you can say "I'm going to Disneyland."
I would allow my songs to be used as jingles for enriched uranium if they paid me enough.
If my manager didn't have my cheesy, pensive single playing at the end of every emotional episode of every two-bit drama on television I would have her fired.
If they gave me a good enough deal, I would get a Ticketmaster tramp stamp.
Before you start accusing me or Pearl Jam of being greedy "you know whats," stop and think for a moment how expensive it is to live. Then think of how expensive it is for Pearl Jam to live. They have kids, mortgages, college tuitions, wives who have to shop, mistresses who need apartments, and those prescription drugs don't buy themselves.
Sure there are bands that walk the walk and wouldn't take a dime from a corporation to save a spotted owl. But those bands sell 11 albums a year and play for 100 fans at a venue that doubles as a furniture store.
The best way for Pearl Jam to spread their message and affect change is by reaching as many people as possible. Sometimes that involves producing albums, sometimes that involves selling concert tickets and sometimes that involves working with corporate America.
After all, the best way to bring down the machine is from within. Fight the power and pass me my iPhone.
Copyright 2009, ClickItTicket.com
About the Author:
Ryan Hogan is a writer for the ClickitTicket sports and music blog. At ClickitTicket.com you'll find concert tickets to purchase like Pearl Jam tickets. Find a huge selection of event tickets and a wealth of original entertainment content at http://www.ClickitTicket.com/
Read more of Ryan Hogan's articles.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Considerations for Executive Protection
Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Harold German
According to the FBI, there is an average of 6.7 kidnappings and 5.5 murders for every 100,000 people in the United States. Although these statistics refer to the general population, executives and high profile individuals, as well as their families, are included in this figure. In a continuous effort to curb these numbers, many organizations seek out executive protection services, which are typically performed by high-end security companies. As part of their initial process a security guard company usually begins its executive protection plan by performing a comprehensive risk assessment. It is here that the risks against the executive are identified, measured and are implemented to prevent these risks from materializing. Many considerations are factored into this process, which can vary depending on the client and circumstances. For instance, the client may be a political figure with a controversial stance, or the child of a prominent business tycoon. The former might run a higher assassination risk, whereas the latter might have a higher risk for kidnapping. Each scenario poses a completely different set of challenges.
Risk Assessment Does Not Fit Into a Perfect Mold
As those who have been in the executive protection business for any length of time will tell you, in many cases, risk assessment for executive protection-in practice-is not always that straightforward. There are instances where one is assigned to a principal against whom there is really no obvious threat. With a case of this type, many security professionals working alone-and even some working in a group-run the risk of falling into complacency, which can result in grave mistakes and security holes if a situation were to arise.
For instance, take a situation where you are assigned to protect a much-loved philanthropic business executive. A background check on the principal may show that this is a person who has worked his way up using the straight and narrow path, making no enemies in the process-or so it seems. The problem with most of the methods used for checking these kinds of facts is that they tend to take note of only the major incidents in a person's history; therefore, no mention is made of things like the insubordinate employee that the executive might have had to fire. The affected individual might still be holding a grudge-perhaps feeling that his/her life was ruined by, what they consider to have been, an 'unfair dismissal.' As surprising as it might seem, there have been cases of people killing others over matters of even less significance.
Moreover, some methods used to establish the kinds of risks facing an executive tend not to mention some of what might be considered significant happenings in his/her personal life, which could also turn out to have major security implications. Take for instance love triangles, which may have left behind a partner who felt that their 'lover was stolen' and still yearns for any opportunity to exact revenge. As improbable as it may sound, this experience may be of enough concern to pose a security threat, and as such, should be considered as part of the risk assessment.
The Low-Risk Case
What emerges from all of these scenarios is that while there are indeed some executive who might be considered relatively 'low risk' cases, there is clearly no executive who can be considered a 'zero risk' case. A security professional's perspective on this matter should be that 'if there was no risk against the executive, then there clearly would be no need for me to be here.' Security professionals are hired to guard against certain risks, so it is their duty to accurately identify such risks and implement measures to guard against them. This is a fact that security professionals might lose sight of if they think that their hiring is due to a matter of procedure, rather than due to actual need or risk. For instance, if a given organization's top executives are always assigned bodyguards, there is a risk of a newcomer feeling that they are there because having a bodyguard is one of the 'perks' of being a top executive for the organization and that there is no actual risk. This would be a huge departure from the proper perspective on this matter. The assignment of bodyguards, or security staff, to these top executives is necessary because there is always a risk when you are in any high-profile role, whether it be business, political, religious or social. There might be 'low risk' cases, but there is never a 'zero risk' case, as far as executive protection assignments go.
Equating 'Low Risk' with 'No Risk'
The ramifications of equating 'low risk' with 'no risk' can be grave. This is a business where mistakes can result in death, either of the executive or of the guard. The first and foremost danger of equating 'low risk' with 'no risk' is, as previously mentioned, that the security professional charged with overseeing the wellbeing of an executive may fall into complacency, thereby making serious blunders with regard to security arrangements. It is due to these lapses that we hear about cases of executives, or their families, being kidnapped in spite of having bodyguards, or security staff, by their side.
Another danger of inaccurately gauging risk becomes apparent when you consider that the perpetrators will be looking out for behaviors and telling signs that depict this type of scenario by simply reading the guards and the supposedly protected environment. Criminals can read a secured environment and spot weaknesses and mood. They can be spurred into action, or completely diffused, simply by what they see. They may also make adjustments their plans. Rather than assassinate an executive, perpetrators might decide to instead kidnap him. For instance, if the security environment is close to an open body of water, and the guards are not in possession of fast nautical transportation, the perpetrators can easily take advantage of this clear security weakness. They have, essentially, been provided with an easy method of escape, which can be identified by a simple visual inspection. Hence, if the guards charged with the client's safety only implemented safeguards against assassination, and absolutely no measures to counter the risk of abduction, there is no telling what harm can be done.
Yet another danger of equating 'low risk' with 'no risk' is that it can lead to loss of professional credibility, even where the potential risk is caught before fully manifesting. Your role as an security professional is to ensure the well being of the executive in question; therefore, should you let the executive fall into harm's way, it would reflect poorly on your professional capabilities. In the aftermath of such an incident, it should be of no surprise if you end up losing your executive protection role.
Executive protection is a specialized security service and customers expect all bases to be covered. Therefore, it reflects very badly on the executive protection professional charged with ensuring the wellbeing of the principal in question (and, consequently, the company they work for) when it emerges that some potential risks were left unidentified during risk assessment. Granted, bad things do happen in spite of best efforts; but should that fate befall an executive in your care, it should be clear in the inevitable investigation that follows that you-as an executive protection professional-had at the very least anticipated the event in your risk assessment. This means that it would be a case of protective measures failing, rather than a case of failing to anticipate risks.
How Preparedness Can Affect the Outcome
There are many instances of executives falling into grave danger because of what appears to be security detail neglect (typically not deliberate) that one can learn from. Perhaps one of the most famous cases is the death of Princess Diana of Wales. On the 31st of August 1997, Princess Diana died in a car accident in the Pont de l'Alma road tunnel in Paris, France. She was accompanied by her companion and guards assigned to protect the couple during their evening out on the town. After an eighteen-month French judicial investigation, they concluded that the crash was caused by the security team driver, whose errant driving had been incited by paparazzi photographers, and impaired by the influence of drugs and alcohol. A subsequent inquest conducted at the Royal Courts of Justice in London concluded that the accident was the result of the negligent driving of both the security team driver, as well as the paparazzi photographers, whom they had sought to evade. Either way, proper planning and an accurate assessment of the security risk, should have been effected. In this case, the security team driver decided to solve the security challenge at hand by placing the individuals, which he had been assigned to protect, in unnecessary levels of danger.
Sometimes security threats aren't caused by the actions of others. As a security professional assigned to ensure the health and safety of your customers, you must be ready to confront and solve every security challenge that arises, even if it comes from the customer himself. As an example of executive protection done right, take the case of popular Australian musician and reality TV executive Ozzie Osbourne. Osbourne found himself facing danger not from a human saboteur, but from his own bike, and were it not for his bodyguard's quick action (and knowledge of CPR), Osbourne would have, in his own words, "lost his own life." These examples underscore the need to ensure that proper security assessments of every risk are considered and conducted when it comes to executive protection.
Whether you operate a security company in New York or in California, the rules are the same. Assessment skills can be just as effective and useful as any other skill that a guard may have. It may even be the most important when it comes to preventing security situations. These skills need to be honed even in a low-risk environment, and no risk should be left unplanned for simply because it is unlikely to happen. Security guards tasked with providing executive protection must cover all the bases if they expect to keep their client's free from danger. It should be every protection professional's basic view that anyone they are assigned to is at every imaginable risk (albeit in varying degrees.) By executing proper assessments and assigning appropriate risk levels, security professionals can more effectively and accurately safeguard their clients against all types of security threats.
About the Author:
Harold German is a renowned author and contributor, with appearances on CNN and in noted international publications, such as The Economist. Mr. German is senior writer for Partner Service Sites, where he covers a variety of topics, including technologies and procedures that would be used by a security company in New York or elsewhere, in addition to developments on the latest security services at http://www.arrowsecurity.net/
Read more of Harold German's articles.
Copyright © 2009 Harold German
According to the FBI, there is an average of 6.7 kidnappings and 5.5 murders for every 100,000 people in the United States. Although these statistics refer to the general population, executives and high profile individuals, as well as their families, are included in this figure. In a continuous effort to curb these numbers, many organizations seek out executive protection services, which are typically performed by high-end security companies. As part of their initial process a security guard company usually begins its executive protection plan by performing a comprehensive risk assessment. It is here that the risks against the executive are identified, measured and are implemented to prevent these risks from materializing. Many considerations are factored into this process, which can vary depending on the client and circumstances. For instance, the client may be a political figure with a controversial stance, or the child of a prominent business tycoon. The former might run a higher assassination risk, whereas the latter might have a higher risk for kidnapping. Each scenario poses a completely different set of challenges.
Risk Assessment Does Not Fit Into a Perfect Mold
As those who have been in the executive protection business for any length of time will tell you, in many cases, risk assessment for executive protection-in practice-is not always that straightforward. There are instances where one is assigned to a principal against whom there is really no obvious threat. With a case of this type, many security professionals working alone-and even some working in a group-run the risk of falling into complacency, which can result in grave mistakes and security holes if a situation were to arise.
For instance, take a situation where you are assigned to protect a much-loved philanthropic business executive. A background check on the principal may show that this is a person who has worked his way up using the straight and narrow path, making no enemies in the process-or so it seems. The problem with most of the methods used for checking these kinds of facts is that they tend to take note of only the major incidents in a person's history; therefore, no mention is made of things like the insubordinate employee that the executive might have had to fire. The affected individual might still be holding a grudge-perhaps feeling that his/her life was ruined by, what they consider to have been, an 'unfair dismissal.' As surprising as it might seem, there have been cases of people killing others over matters of even less significance.
Moreover, some methods used to establish the kinds of risks facing an executive tend not to mention some of what might be considered significant happenings in his/her personal life, which could also turn out to have major security implications. Take for instance love triangles, which may have left behind a partner who felt that their 'lover was stolen' and still yearns for any opportunity to exact revenge. As improbable as it may sound, this experience may be of enough concern to pose a security threat, and as such, should be considered as part of the risk assessment.
The Low-Risk Case
What emerges from all of these scenarios is that while there are indeed some executive who might be considered relatively 'low risk' cases, there is clearly no executive who can be considered a 'zero risk' case. A security professional's perspective on this matter should be that 'if there was no risk against the executive, then there clearly would be no need for me to be here.' Security professionals are hired to guard against certain risks, so it is their duty to accurately identify such risks and implement measures to guard against them. This is a fact that security professionals might lose sight of if they think that their hiring is due to a matter of procedure, rather than due to actual need or risk. For instance, if a given organization's top executives are always assigned bodyguards, there is a risk of a newcomer feeling that they are there because having a bodyguard is one of the 'perks' of being a top executive for the organization and that there is no actual risk. This would be a huge departure from the proper perspective on this matter. The assignment of bodyguards, or security staff, to these top executives is necessary because there is always a risk when you are in any high-profile role, whether it be business, political, religious or social. There might be 'low risk' cases, but there is never a 'zero risk' case, as far as executive protection assignments go.
Equating 'Low Risk' with 'No Risk'
The ramifications of equating 'low risk' with 'no risk' can be grave. This is a business where mistakes can result in death, either of the executive or of the guard. The first and foremost danger of equating 'low risk' with 'no risk' is, as previously mentioned, that the security professional charged with overseeing the wellbeing of an executive may fall into complacency, thereby making serious blunders with regard to security arrangements. It is due to these lapses that we hear about cases of executives, or their families, being kidnapped in spite of having bodyguards, or security staff, by their side.
Another danger of inaccurately gauging risk becomes apparent when you consider that the perpetrators will be looking out for behaviors and telling signs that depict this type of scenario by simply reading the guards and the supposedly protected environment. Criminals can read a secured environment and spot weaknesses and mood. They can be spurred into action, or completely diffused, simply by what they see. They may also make adjustments their plans. Rather than assassinate an executive, perpetrators might decide to instead kidnap him. For instance, if the security environment is close to an open body of water, and the guards are not in possession of fast nautical transportation, the perpetrators can easily take advantage of this clear security weakness. They have, essentially, been provided with an easy method of escape, which can be identified by a simple visual inspection. Hence, if the guards charged with the client's safety only implemented safeguards against assassination, and absolutely no measures to counter the risk of abduction, there is no telling what harm can be done.
Yet another danger of equating 'low risk' with 'no risk' is that it can lead to loss of professional credibility, even where the potential risk is caught before fully manifesting. Your role as an security professional is to ensure the well being of the executive in question; therefore, should you let the executive fall into harm's way, it would reflect poorly on your professional capabilities. In the aftermath of such an incident, it should be of no surprise if you end up losing your executive protection role.
Executive protection is a specialized security service and customers expect all bases to be covered. Therefore, it reflects very badly on the executive protection professional charged with ensuring the wellbeing of the principal in question (and, consequently, the company they work for) when it emerges that some potential risks were left unidentified during risk assessment. Granted, bad things do happen in spite of best efforts; but should that fate befall an executive in your care, it should be clear in the inevitable investigation that follows that you-as an executive protection professional-had at the very least anticipated the event in your risk assessment. This means that it would be a case of protective measures failing, rather than a case of failing to anticipate risks.
How Preparedness Can Affect the Outcome
There are many instances of executives falling into grave danger because of what appears to be security detail neglect (typically not deliberate) that one can learn from. Perhaps one of the most famous cases is the death of Princess Diana of Wales. On the 31st of August 1997, Princess Diana died in a car accident in the Pont de l'Alma road tunnel in Paris, France. She was accompanied by her companion and guards assigned to protect the couple during their evening out on the town. After an eighteen-month French judicial investigation, they concluded that the crash was caused by the security team driver, whose errant driving had been incited by paparazzi photographers, and impaired by the influence of drugs and alcohol. A subsequent inquest conducted at the Royal Courts of Justice in London concluded that the accident was the result of the negligent driving of both the security team driver, as well as the paparazzi photographers, whom they had sought to evade. Either way, proper planning and an accurate assessment of the security risk, should have been effected. In this case, the security team driver decided to solve the security challenge at hand by placing the individuals, which he had been assigned to protect, in unnecessary levels of danger.
Sometimes security threats aren't caused by the actions of others. As a security professional assigned to ensure the health and safety of your customers, you must be ready to confront and solve every security challenge that arises, even if it comes from the customer himself. As an example of executive protection done right, take the case of popular Australian musician and reality TV executive Ozzie Osbourne. Osbourne found himself facing danger not from a human saboteur, but from his own bike, and were it not for his bodyguard's quick action (and knowledge of CPR), Osbourne would have, in his own words, "lost his own life." These examples underscore the need to ensure that proper security assessments of every risk are considered and conducted when it comes to executive protection.
Whether you operate a security company in New York or in California, the rules are the same. Assessment skills can be just as effective and useful as any other skill that a guard may have. It may even be the most important when it comes to preventing security situations. These skills need to be honed even in a low-risk environment, and no risk should be left unplanned for simply because it is unlikely to happen. Security guards tasked with providing executive protection must cover all the bases if they expect to keep their client's free from danger. It should be every protection professional's basic view that anyone they are assigned to is at every imaginable risk (albeit in varying degrees.) By executing proper assessments and assigning appropriate risk levels, security professionals can more effectively and accurately safeguard their clients against all types of security threats.
About the Author:
Harold German is a renowned author and contributor, with appearances on CNN and in noted international publications, such as The Economist. Mr. German is senior writer for Partner Service Sites, where he covers a variety of topics, including technologies and procedures that would be used by a security company in New York or elsewhere, in addition to developments on the latest security services at http://www.arrowsecurity.net/
Read more of Harold German's articles.
Monday, July 27, 2009
George Washington, Known OPSEC Practitioner - OPSEC In His Own Words
Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Chris Cox
Arguably, no President in history has received a legendary status equal to George Washington. His reputation as a gifted military leader stems partially from his unique perspective as the leader of counterinsurgency forces (as a young officer in the Seven Year's War) and as the leader of an insurgent army (in the Revolutionary War).
Within OPSEC circles, Washington is often quoted as saying, "Even minutiae should have a place in our collection, for things of a seemingly trifling nature, when enjoined with others of a more serious cast, may lead to valuable conclusion." While this is certainly true you must understand that this is a lesson our first president learned through bitter, near fatal experience.
Washington's first experience with OPSEC (a term not used at the time, but the principles remain the same) came at the age of 21 when he was a young officer in the Seven Year's War under British General Braddock. The effective French intelligence network (no doubt enabled by ineffective security) was able to ascertain Braddock's moves well in advance and successfully ambushed the combined British and Colonial forces on their first expedition. In this attack, the combined forces lost 615 of their officers and 914 soldiers; in addition General Braddock was mortally wounded and barely escaped with the aid of Washington. Before his death four days later, Braddock gave Washington his ceremonial sash, one of the two reminders of this lesson that would stay with him forever.
If this hard lesson taught Washington one thing, it was the necessity of effective intelligence, as well as that of secrecy. He was later quoted as saying, "(U)pon Secrecy, Success depends in Most Enterprises - and for want of it, they are generally defeated."
With this philosophy, Washington would establish and lead an effective spy network during the Revolutionary War. These spies would operate, at times, directly with or under British forces and would provide Washington with critical military information regarding British plans, strategies and objectives. In order to evade detection, all agents would memorize and refer only to code names (for instance, George Washington was only referred to as "711" and New York was "727"), which demonstrates a clear understanding of the importance of obfuscating key names and locations. Using the same scheme for names and locations also helped to hide their true meaning. In addition, the use of secret codes, invisible ink and encryption demonstrated Washington's awareness of the necessity of not only attempting to avoid the capture of information, but also to prevent the use of information should capture occur.
Unfortunately, this valuable lesson seemed to be forgotten when Washington sent a seemingly harmless letter to his dentist in Philadelphia asking for denture wires and a cleaning tool. In and of itself, this letter provided no military intelligence of value when it and other messages were captured by the British. However, some of the other messages indicated a potential attack on New York. Sir Henry Clinton, then chief of the British Army, was skeptical. The letters almost seemed too good to be true especially when you understand that Washington's skill in military deception was known by the enemy. Clinton was left to wonder of the validity and value of the "intelligence." However, Clinton correctly reasoned that this letter would most likely not have been included in a package was to be intentionally "captured" and surmised that the captured intelligence was legitimate. Clinton was able to strengthen his forces in New York, prompting Washington to abandon that campaign.
This setback did not discourage Washington from continuing to use deception and disinformation however. This lesson learned became a very effective strategy to fabricate documents to be "captured", or to instruct agents to discuss certain matters in areas that British soldiers or spies were able to overhear, or even to intercept messages meant for British forces and alter them before passing them along seemingly unchanged. For example: When Washington had his army outside of Philadelphia he instructed his procurement officers make sizable purchases of supplies, and even constructed fake military facilities, which convinced the British that his 3,000-strong army contained 40,000 men.
Throughout the war, Washington relied heavily on espionage and intelligence. The Culper Spy Ring, headed by Major Benjamin Talmadge (under the pseudonym "John Bolton") learned that the British had plans to attack an allied French expedition in Rhode Island (it is not clear how British Forces learned of the landing). Washington responded by planting false intelligence with British agents indicating that he intended to move against New York City. In response, the British Commander held his forces at New York, which had the additional benefit of masking Washington's movement towards Chesapeake Bay and Yorktown. It was imperative that Washington's forces practice good OPSEC in order to avoid detection of this grand deception.
Washington understood the importance of educating those under him about what we've come to call OPSEC. In a clear early understanding of what we now know as the OPSEC process, Washington wrote to thank James Lovell for a piece of intelligence, saying, "it is by comparing a variety of information, we are frequently enabled to investigate facts, which were so intricate or hidden, that no single clue could have led to the knowledge of them. . . intelligence becomes interesting which but from its connection and collateral circumstances, would not be important." He also spoke to General Rufus Putnam in August 1777 about calculating an adversary's strength, saying, "Deserters and people of that class always speak of number. . . indeed, scarce any person can form a judgment unless he sees the troops paraded and can count the divisions. But, if you can by any means obtain a list of the regiments left upon the island, we can compute the number of men within a few hundreds, over or under." This "training" prompted Federalist William Duer to write, "To say more in a Letter, might be imprudent" when discussing a matter of potential value.
Similarly, to the credit of the Continental Congress, the first secrecy agreement was adopted for government employees. It read, in part, "I do solemnly swear, that I will not directly or indirectly divulge any manner or thing which shall come to my knowledge as (clerk, secretary) of the board of War and Ordnance for the United Colonies. . . So help me God."
Perhaps the best example of OPSEC in Washington's strategy was in the attack on Stony Point. Stony Point was an ominous British fort on the Hudson River, with walls 150 feet high, water on three sides and a swamp on the fourth, and an imposing garrison of 500 men and many cannons. Colonel Wayne was convinced that it could be taken, and eventually convinced Washington that it could be done. Washington approved the plan with the advice, "That it should be attempted by the Light Infantry only, which should march under cover of the night and with the utmost secrecy to the enemy's lines, securing every person they find to prevent discovery". Note especially the use of darkness to mask movement and the securing of potential witnesses/agents. Because of this secrecy, the surprise attack was a success resulting in only 15 American deaths versus 63 British.
Clearly, George Washington effectively led the newly formed army to victory not only because of excellent military tactics, but also because a solid understanding of OPSEC. If OPSEC (http://www.opsecprofessionals.org) can help General Washington win a war then who are we to deny its use today to protect our sensitive information?
About the Author:
Written by: Chris Cox. The Operations Security Professional's Association (OSPA) is an International entity dedicated to promoting OPSEC by providing free resources and member collaboration. OSPA works with groups all over the world, from US Federal Agencies to Neighborhood Watch programs, and believes that each one deserves security. http://www.opsecprofessionals.org/
Read more Articles written by Chris Cox.
Copyright © 2009 Chris Cox
Arguably, no President in history has received a legendary status equal to George Washington. His reputation as a gifted military leader stems partially from his unique perspective as the leader of counterinsurgency forces (as a young officer in the Seven Year's War) and as the leader of an insurgent army (in the Revolutionary War).
Within OPSEC circles, Washington is often quoted as saying, "Even minutiae should have a place in our collection, for things of a seemingly trifling nature, when enjoined with others of a more serious cast, may lead to valuable conclusion." While this is certainly true you must understand that this is a lesson our first president learned through bitter, near fatal experience.
Washington's first experience with OPSEC (a term not used at the time, but the principles remain the same) came at the age of 21 when he was a young officer in the Seven Year's War under British General Braddock. The effective French intelligence network (no doubt enabled by ineffective security) was able to ascertain Braddock's moves well in advance and successfully ambushed the combined British and Colonial forces on their first expedition. In this attack, the combined forces lost 615 of their officers and 914 soldiers; in addition General Braddock was mortally wounded and barely escaped with the aid of Washington. Before his death four days later, Braddock gave Washington his ceremonial sash, one of the two reminders of this lesson that would stay with him forever.
If this hard lesson taught Washington one thing, it was the necessity of effective intelligence, as well as that of secrecy. He was later quoted as saying, "(U)pon Secrecy, Success depends in Most Enterprises - and for want of it, they are generally defeated."
With this philosophy, Washington would establish and lead an effective spy network during the Revolutionary War. These spies would operate, at times, directly with or under British forces and would provide Washington with critical military information regarding British plans, strategies and objectives. In order to evade detection, all agents would memorize and refer only to code names (for instance, George Washington was only referred to as "711" and New York was "727"), which demonstrates a clear understanding of the importance of obfuscating key names and locations. Using the same scheme for names and locations also helped to hide their true meaning. In addition, the use of secret codes, invisible ink and encryption demonstrated Washington's awareness of the necessity of not only attempting to avoid the capture of information, but also to prevent the use of information should capture occur.
Unfortunately, this valuable lesson seemed to be forgotten when Washington sent a seemingly harmless letter to his dentist in Philadelphia asking for denture wires and a cleaning tool. In and of itself, this letter provided no military intelligence of value when it and other messages were captured by the British. However, some of the other messages indicated a potential attack on New York. Sir Henry Clinton, then chief of the British Army, was skeptical. The letters almost seemed too good to be true especially when you understand that Washington's skill in military deception was known by the enemy. Clinton was left to wonder of the validity and value of the "intelligence." However, Clinton correctly reasoned that this letter would most likely not have been included in a package was to be intentionally "captured" and surmised that the captured intelligence was legitimate. Clinton was able to strengthen his forces in New York, prompting Washington to abandon that campaign.
This setback did not discourage Washington from continuing to use deception and disinformation however. This lesson learned became a very effective strategy to fabricate documents to be "captured", or to instruct agents to discuss certain matters in areas that British soldiers or spies were able to overhear, or even to intercept messages meant for British forces and alter them before passing them along seemingly unchanged. For example: When Washington had his army outside of Philadelphia he instructed his procurement officers make sizable purchases of supplies, and even constructed fake military facilities, which convinced the British that his 3,000-strong army contained 40,000 men.
Throughout the war, Washington relied heavily on espionage and intelligence. The Culper Spy Ring, headed by Major Benjamin Talmadge (under the pseudonym "John Bolton") learned that the British had plans to attack an allied French expedition in Rhode Island (it is not clear how British Forces learned of the landing). Washington responded by planting false intelligence with British agents indicating that he intended to move against New York City. In response, the British Commander held his forces at New York, which had the additional benefit of masking Washington's movement towards Chesapeake Bay and Yorktown. It was imperative that Washington's forces practice good OPSEC in order to avoid detection of this grand deception.
Washington understood the importance of educating those under him about what we've come to call OPSEC. In a clear early understanding of what we now know as the OPSEC process, Washington wrote to thank James Lovell for a piece of intelligence, saying, "it is by comparing a variety of information, we are frequently enabled to investigate facts, which were so intricate or hidden, that no single clue could have led to the knowledge of them. . . intelligence becomes interesting which but from its connection and collateral circumstances, would not be important." He also spoke to General Rufus Putnam in August 1777 about calculating an adversary's strength, saying, "Deserters and people of that class always speak of number. . . indeed, scarce any person can form a judgment unless he sees the troops paraded and can count the divisions. But, if you can by any means obtain a list of the regiments left upon the island, we can compute the number of men within a few hundreds, over or under." This "training" prompted Federalist William Duer to write, "To say more in a Letter, might be imprudent" when discussing a matter of potential value.
Similarly, to the credit of the Continental Congress, the first secrecy agreement was adopted for government employees. It read, in part, "I do solemnly swear, that I will not directly or indirectly divulge any manner or thing which shall come to my knowledge as (clerk, secretary) of the board of War and Ordnance for the United Colonies. . . So help me God."
Perhaps the best example of OPSEC in Washington's strategy was in the attack on Stony Point. Stony Point was an ominous British fort on the Hudson River, with walls 150 feet high, water on three sides and a swamp on the fourth, and an imposing garrison of 500 men and many cannons. Colonel Wayne was convinced that it could be taken, and eventually convinced Washington that it could be done. Washington approved the plan with the advice, "That it should be attempted by the Light Infantry only, which should march under cover of the night and with the utmost secrecy to the enemy's lines, securing every person they find to prevent discovery". Note especially the use of darkness to mask movement and the securing of potential witnesses/agents. Because of this secrecy, the surprise attack was a success resulting in only 15 American deaths versus 63 British.
Clearly, George Washington effectively led the newly formed army to victory not only because of excellent military tactics, but also because a solid understanding of OPSEC. If OPSEC (http://www.opsecprofessionals.org) can help General Washington win a war then who are we to deny its use today to protect our sensitive information?
About the Author:
Written by: Chris Cox. The Operations Security Professional's Association (OSPA) is an International entity dedicated to promoting OPSEC by providing free resources and member collaboration. OSPA works with groups all over the world, from US Federal Agencies to Neighborhood Watch programs, and believes that each one deserves security. http://www.opsecprofessionals.org/
Read more Articles written by Chris Cox.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Let There Be Peace
Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Joyce C. Lock
If we believe we are in the last days, we need to quit calling God's messengers 'false prophets' (Je.25:4). Hell, fire, and brimstone preaching is not a prophet's passion, but the result of other's unbelief. Prophets feel whatever God feels and are honor bound to warn unbelieving people they also love.
For fear of an antichrist or Jonestown type experience, leaders hush prophets by whatever means possible; all the while, feeling justified. And, people continue to believe whatever they are told.
"And (they) say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets." Mt. 23:30
Most prophets dare not come out of the closet. 'If we talk to God, we are spiritual. If God talks to us, we are scitsophrenic.'
While many truly have a heart for God's people, they error in deciding when, who, and how people can serve (becoming Pharaohs, creating spiritual wounds) when all they would need do is to listen for the Spirit and let God sit on their throne. The Spirit cannot lie.
It makes no difference how one is qualified, as faithful is He who calls you, who also will do it. For, it is God who builds HIS church.
Instead, pride is placed upon one's knowledge and abilities; forgetting such will pass away. You might notice who Jesus would become angry with (not the spiritually weak, poor, sick, or lame) but leaders who kept them that way.
God will do whatever it takes to make sure those who are saved will be saved. When I asked how many prophecies have to come to pass, God answered, "As many as it takes."
"For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another," Mt. 24:7-10.
While people look to giant earthquakes, they are missing that the very foundation of their families are being shaken; the center of their world. The famine is spiritual, and they are starving for prophets to be allowed to show them the way, Re.22:6.
Prophecies are happening individually, everywhere, while the church sleeps on. We are Jews who worship in Spirit and truth, and adopted Israelites (Ro. 9:4).
With all the religions in the world, it is insulting God to think any have all the answers. There is only one omnipotent, all knowing God. Stop telling God what He believes. Do not believe everything you hear and let us not quench the Spirit before God has had a chance to speak.
If your life is not peace, it would be good to consider what is really going on. God wants His throne back. If you really want to see revival; Let My People Go, so they can serve God.
Perhaps peace begins once we realize we are all in the same boat and God gave us gifts to help each other find our way.
About the Author:
Joyce C. Lock is a published author, poet, columnist, and Senior Writer for the Storytime Tapestry Newsletter. Her latest adventures include her new website Glimpses of God http://iam.homewithGod.com/glimpsesofgod/ unveiling mysteries via scriptural methods of Bible study. Joyce's writings encourage us in our relationship with God and each other. Find fresh new articles, on a variety of topics, at: http://www.thephantomwriters.com/recent/200/index.html
Read more Articles written by Joyce C. Lock.
Copyright © 2009 Joyce C. Lock
If we believe we are in the last days, we need to quit calling God's messengers 'false prophets' (Je.25:4). Hell, fire, and brimstone preaching is not a prophet's passion, but the result of other's unbelief. Prophets feel whatever God feels and are honor bound to warn unbelieving people they also love.
For fear of an antichrist or Jonestown type experience, leaders hush prophets by whatever means possible; all the while, feeling justified. And, people continue to believe whatever they are told.
"And (they) say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets." Mt. 23:30
Most prophets dare not come out of the closet. 'If we talk to God, we are spiritual. If God talks to us, we are scitsophrenic.'
While many truly have a heart for God's people, they error in deciding when, who, and how people can serve (becoming Pharaohs, creating spiritual wounds) when all they would need do is to listen for the Spirit and let God sit on their throne. The Spirit cannot lie.
It makes no difference how one is qualified, as faithful is He who calls you, who also will do it. For, it is God who builds HIS church.
Instead, pride is placed upon one's knowledge and abilities; forgetting such will pass away. You might notice who Jesus would become angry with (not the spiritually weak, poor, sick, or lame) but leaders who kept them that way.
God will do whatever it takes to make sure those who are saved will be saved. When I asked how many prophecies have to come to pass, God answered, "As many as it takes."
"For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another," Mt. 24:7-10.
While people look to giant earthquakes, they are missing that the very foundation of their families are being shaken; the center of their world. The famine is spiritual, and they are starving for prophets to be allowed to show them the way, Re.22:6.
Prophecies are happening individually, everywhere, while the church sleeps on. We are Jews who worship in Spirit and truth, and adopted Israelites (Ro. 9:4).
With all the religions in the world, it is insulting God to think any have all the answers. There is only one omnipotent, all knowing God. Stop telling God what He believes. Do not believe everything you hear and let us not quench the Spirit before God has had a chance to speak.
If your life is not peace, it would be good to consider what is really going on. God wants His throne back. If you really want to see revival; Let My People Go, so they can serve God.
Perhaps peace begins once we realize we are all in the same boat and God gave us gifts to help each other find our way.
About the Author:
Joyce C. Lock is a published author, poet, columnist, and Senior Writer for the Storytime Tapestry Newsletter. Her latest adventures include her new website Glimpses of God http://iam.homewithGod.com/glimpsesofgod/ unveiling mysteries via scriptural methods of Bible study. Joyce's writings encourage us in our relationship with God and each other. Find fresh new articles, on a variety of topics, at: http://www.thephantomwriters.com/recent/200/index.html
Read more Articles written by Joyce C. Lock.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Gambling Online - Is Gambling Online Illegal?
Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Skyler Ace
The legality of Gambling Online has always been a debatable topic. It is not an easy question to answer. The reason is because the whole situation of legality depends on where you are when you play. The matter of gambling online has always been a gray area as it is an unconventional phenomenon.
The concept of gambling online started somewhere around the mid 1990s. This was when the online casinos were launched in Antigua for the first time. This introduction was glorious because a large number of people got interested and turned on by the idea of making a lot of money so conveniently and without ever leaving home. People were impressed by the idea of earning money by just spinning some reels or playing a few hands from the convenience of their home.
From the time of its' introduction in the mid 1990s, the concept of gambling online has grown at a fast pace and a lot of online companies have been able to earn lucrative sum due to their listing in public stock trading worldwide. Internationally, it took some time for lawmakers from different nations to realize that a new concept has hit the market and that this would require a new set of regulations. It is surprising but true that certain territories with state-sanctioned gambling were also unaware of something that had so strongly caught the fancy of general public.
When it comes to solving the complicated issue of whether or not gambling on the internet is legal, different nations and lawmakers have different views. Some officials believe that the whole thing is against the law. They think that one cannot wager over the World Wide Web or the telephone. On the other hand, some feel that the illegal part about online gambling is its' operation and that too if it is set up in the United States. This is the reason websites prefer operating from overseas locations such as Australia, Caribbean and Latin America.
There are also people who think that it is not worth debating on the topic as the government has other major issues to act upon.
According to Sue Schneider, publisher of a well known interactive gaming news, there is nothing specifically written or prophesied in the law books about gambling online being illegal. This is the reason most online gambling companies do not shy away from openly advertising on different stations across the radio dial. It is also true that no one will be charged with a crime for betting with any of the services available across the globe.
The business of gambling online is booming. The Land of Antigua is known to possess most online gambling sites. According to estimations, the industry has been declared to hold a worth of $200 million each year. The revenues tend to top $1 billion on an annual basis.
Antigua is certainly a winner but it is also true that about seventy-five governments across the globe license Gambling Online. Currently more than about 1,800 online gambling websites exist.
This leaves lawmakers in the United States with three options namely: regulate, ban or continue to ignore. In case, they choose to regulate, name brand gambling betting interests in Las Vegas will be the first to leap in and obtain legitimacy to online gambling. In case the law opts to ban, the huge gambling online network and people betting would face huge losses. Hence, it is not easy to make out whether online gambling is actually legal or not.
The only thing people across the globe are sure of today is that gambling online is very lucrative. All one requires to do is to sit comfortably at home, spend some time and start making money. There are a lot of people world wide from different walks of life and age groups who have earned great profits through gambling online.
One also requires considering the risk factor of online gambling and its bad affects due to addiction, especially among teenagers.
Addiction to gambling can have adverse health, financial and mental effects on an individual.
It is advised that if you have an addictive personality, you should avoid online gambling altogether, as your future financial stability does require a measure of self-control when facing the urge to gamble on just one more roll of the dice or slot machine.
Simply put, gambling online is not a bad thing, unless you simply find it too hard to walk away when you are losing.
About the Author:
This article was written by gambling pro Skyler Ace. Warning: Do Not Gamble Another Dollar Online Until You Read This. Free Consumer Awareness Guide Reveals The Seven Deadly Mistakes All Gamblers Make: http://www.jobsource20-23.com/casclok.html Also feel free to visit our gambling blog for tons of winning tips: http://onlinegambling23.blogspot.com/
Read more of Skyler Ace's articles.
Copyright © 2009 Skyler Ace
The legality of Gambling Online has always been a debatable topic. It is not an easy question to answer. The reason is because the whole situation of legality depends on where you are when you play. The matter of gambling online has always been a gray area as it is an unconventional phenomenon.
The concept of gambling online started somewhere around the mid 1990s. This was when the online casinos were launched in Antigua for the first time. This introduction was glorious because a large number of people got interested and turned on by the idea of making a lot of money so conveniently and without ever leaving home. People were impressed by the idea of earning money by just spinning some reels or playing a few hands from the convenience of their home.
From the time of its' introduction in the mid 1990s, the concept of gambling online has grown at a fast pace and a lot of online companies have been able to earn lucrative sum due to their listing in public stock trading worldwide. Internationally, it took some time for lawmakers from different nations to realize that a new concept has hit the market and that this would require a new set of regulations. It is surprising but true that certain territories with state-sanctioned gambling were also unaware of something that had so strongly caught the fancy of general public.
When it comes to solving the complicated issue of whether or not gambling on the internet is legal, different nations and lawmakers have different views. Some officials believe that the whole thing is against the law. They think that one cannot wager over the World Wide Web or the telephone. On the other hand, some feel that the illegal part about online gambling is its' operation and that too if it is set up in the United States. This is the reason websites prefer operating from overseas locations such as Australia, Caribbean and Latin America.
There are also people who think that it is not worth debating on the topic as the government has other major issues to act upon.
According to Sue Schneider, publisher of a well known interactive gaming news, there is nothing specifically written or prophesied in the law books about gambling online being illegal. This is the reason most online gambling companies do not shy away from openly advertising on different stations across the radio dial. It is also true that no one will be charged with a crime for betting with any of the services available across the globe.
The business of gambling online is booming. The Land of Antigua is known to possess most online gambling sites. According to estimations, the industry has been declared to hold a worth of $200 million each year. The revenues tend to top $1 billion on an annual basis.
Antigua is certainly a winner but it is also true that about seventy-five governments across the globe license Gambling Online. Currently more than about 1,800 online gambling websites exist.
This leaves lawmakers in the United States with three options namely: regulate, ban or continue to ignore. In case, they choose to regulate, name brand gambling betting interests in Las Vegas will be the first to leap in and obtain legitimacy to online gambling. In case the law opts to ban, the huge gambling online network and people betting would face huge losses. Hence, it is not easy to make out whether online gambling is actually legal or not.
The only thing people across the globe are sure of today is that gambling online is very lucrative. All one requires to do is to sit comfortably at home, spend some time and start making money. There are a lot of people world wide from different walks of life and age groups who have earned great profits through gambling online.
One also requires considering the risk factor of online gambling and its bad affects due to addiction, especially among teenagers.
Addiction to gambling can have adverse health, financial and mental effects on an individual.
It is advised that if you have an addictive personality, you should avoid online gambling altogether, as your future financial stability does require a measure of self-control when facing the urge to gamble on just one more roll of the dice or slot machine.
Simply put, gambling online is not a bad thing, unless you simply find it too hard to walk away when you are losing.
About the Author:
This article was written by gambling pro Skyler Ace. Warning: Do Not Gamble Another Dollar Online Until You Read This. Free Consumer Awareness Guide Reveals The Seven Deadly Mistakes All Gamblers Make: http://www.jobsource20-23.com/casclok.html Also feel free to visit our gambling blog for tons of winning tips: http://onlinegambling23.blogspot.com/
Read more of Skyler Ace's articles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
