We Pledge Our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor…

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” From American Heritage magazine: When the Continental Congress opened its session of Friday, August 2, 1776, in Philadelphia, the major business of the day was to continue a somewhat moribund debate on the Articles of Confederation. An incidental piece of business was the signing, by all the delegates to the Congress, of an engrossed copy of the Declaration of Independence—a matter which John Adams did not consider sufficiently important to mention in his diary of the day’s events. There is little evidence that the actual signing struck any delegates, other than the impressionable Ellery and the dramaturgic Hancock, as one of the great moments in history. The delegation from Massachusetts, where the war had been going on for well over a year, thought it was long overdue, and Samuel Adams grumbled constantly about its lateness. The fifty-six men who were to achieve an immortality, the true dimensions of which seem clearly to have escaped all of them, represented no single stratum of colonial life. They were of varied backgrounds, ages, education, property, and experience. But none signed casually. They were clearly aware, as Abraham Clark of New Jersey put it, that they would have “freedom or a halter.” All but four signers risked their lives and fortunes in spite of considerable family obligations. There is no doubt that the signers of the Declaration knew they were up to something far more serious than making a brave gesture when they put their signatures on the document. Indeed, for reasons of security, the Declaration with the signatures was not published until January, 1777—six months after the signing—for it was fully understood that if the Revolution failed, the signers would be rounded up, their property confiscated, and their lives forfeited. Altogether seventeen of the signers suffered extreme, and in some cases total, property losses. One in nine of them lost his life. But not one man of the fifty six lost his “sacred honor.”  Throughout the long ordeal of an often-floundering war, in a cause that at times seemed hopelessly lost, there was not among the fifty-six men a single defection—despite the reservations that some had had about independence at the beginning and despite the repeated sagging of popular support for the war.

Sacred honor, what an archaic idea, at least by the “standards” of modern times. Honor is what? Military colleges like West Point, paramilitary colleges like The Citadel, religious colleges like Notre Dame have honor codes, which they tend to enforce. Other types of colleges also have honor codes, though enforcement is more lax. Certain religions believe in honor killings, though whose, and what kind of honor is at stake is questionable. At the very least, honor is truthfulness. But how can honor be sacred? Sacred to whom? Perhaps the hint is contained in those concluding words of the Declaration, “with a firm reliance on Divine Providence.” In other words, maybe God, Divine Providence, sanctifies honor and makes it sacred. These colonists, militarily unschooled, lacking in resources, divided in their loyalties, with patriots against tories, by this Declaration of Independence, went to war against the world’s preeminent military power, Great Britain. Darn right they needed to rely on Divine intervention.

That was then. Now we have the proof that our model constitution, copied by other nations, works, at least for over 240 years, but we also have a surfeit of politicians and politics. The servants of the people are awash in perquisites, privileges and pandering, but honor? Not so much. I have no hesitation saying that George Washington is my favorite President. He’s the only one who didn’t want the job, resisted being acclaimed king, and wanted nothing more than to return to his home and provide for his family. Compare that to politicians today. Where did honor go?

Income Inequality, a shibboleth for our time!

In late October, 2018, someone in South Carolina won the mega millions lottery prize of $1.356 billion. Almost everyone else who bought tickets won nothing. In fact, they lost what they had spent on the tickets. As the amount of the prize grew, more and more people bought tickets, thus increasing the odds of their winning. I haven’t heard any complaints about income inequality. It must be a great system. The more people who participate by buying tickets, the higher the prize climbs while simultaneously the chance of any individual winning the prize diminishes proportionally. Could there be a greater example of income inequality than one person winning $1.356 billion and millions of others winning zero while paying for the privilege?

Jeff Bezos, the founder and chairman of Amazon, is currently, at least momentarily, the world’s wealthiest person, as measured by the market value of Amazon stock he owns. I hedge my position by using the words “currently” and “momentarily”, because equity wealth, as in stocks or real estate, is based on a somewhat arbitrary concept of “market value”, which is formally defined as “what a willing and informed buyer is willing to pay a willing seller.” While use of “willing” three times in a single sentence no doubt violates editorial standards, it is apt, because it denotes the following: it is temporary, it can change, it is subjective, and it is voluntary. Mr. Bezos’ stock value is based on the decisions of millions of shareholders, each of whom believe that the purchase of Amazon stock will increase their own wealth. So far, they are right. I bought amazon stock in 1998, when the share price was $4.79. On September, 2018, share price is $2,003. I should be rich! But I’m not. Thinking that the world was going to collapse on January 1, 2000 due to Y2K, I sold my Amazon stock for about $64 a share in 1999. Then I invested the proceeds in a small startup company that proposed to create a non-addictive analgesic from the venom of a poisonous snail. Eventually that company went under and I never recovered my investment. I bet on the wrong horse. The looming question now is, “whom should I blame?” Perhaps even a better question, for those who trust in God, is “am I a steward worthy of having my wealth management responsibilities increased?

Jeff is a billionaire, I not, despite all my 50+ years of hard work and my graduate level education. Shall I blame “structural discrimination”, you know, racism, sexism, ageism, genderism and assorted other “isms”? Nope! I’m white, old and not rich, born Jewish to boot, so there’s no excuse for me. The real structural problem is between my ears, and yours. I was riding a bus one day, and picked up a copy of Inc Magazine that someone had left behind. I read an article about a computer company that some university of Texas student named Michael Dell started out of his dorm room. The article predicted his model would really take off, and the company would soon be going public. As it turned out, the initial public offering price, which the general public usually can’t buy, was $8.50 a share in 1988. The stock quadrupled in value the next 4 years. I thought, when I read the article, “what a dumb idea”. Who’s dumb now?

But material wealth is a measure of what? If you believe in God who owns everything and who created you, material wealth is not something you own, rather something you manage as a steward for the real owner, God. The story of Robert LeTourneau is instructive. God gave him the ability to design powerful earth moving equipment, and he in turn resolved to give back to God’s work 90% of his income. But behold, as his income, and thus his management ability grew, no matter how much he gave away, the 10% he retained just kept growing. The miserly experience the opposite phenomenon. Are you generous? You will be able to grow in generosity. Are you miserly? You will grow in that too!

If you want to reduce your own income inequality, here’s the simple steps that will make all the difference. Save either 5% or 10% of your earnings before spending anything; create a budget which tracks your income, all spending, and allots a certain percentage of income for saving and giving (here’s where you will find out how much you can save without pinching your lifestyle); as your savings increase, decide how much needs to remain in savings as a cash reserve for emergencies–three to six months worth of expenses is recommended–and invest the rest. When I use the terms “save and “invest”, here’s what I mean: savings are very low or no risk of loss of value, very easily accessible without penalties, and consequently very low prospect of growth, like bank accounts; investments are the opposite of those characteristics, with prominent examples being stock mutual funds. If you want details consult with a financial planner, but following these steps WILL build wealth and cure your own structural inequality! That is, as long as you show yourself to God as a worthy steward.

The way to a better life or an invasion by another name?

WASHINGTON, 10/25/2018—Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is expected to sign an order Thursday sending 800 or more troops to reinforce the U.S. southern border in anticipation of the arrival of a migrant caravan, officials said Thursday. President Donald Trump has called the approaching caravan, estimated at 7,000 people strong, a national emergency. The group departed today from Mapastepec, Mexico, more than 1,000 miles from the U.S. border. Mexican officials said nearly 1,700 migrants have dropped out of the caravan to apply for asylum in Mexico, and a few hundred have accepted government offers to bus them back to their home countries. A second, smaller caravan of Hondurans is also headed for the Mexican border. Estimates place its size at between 1,000 and 2,000 travelers. The second caravan is currently in Guatemala, about 200 miles behind the first group. It began on March 25 in the Mexican city of Tapachula, near the Guatemala border. The largest single group of migrants in this caravan is from Honduras, although there are also many Guatemalans and Salvadorans. There’s also bound to be a smattering, or more, of criminals, Islamic terrorists terrorists?, media fame hustlers, political agitators and other flotsam.

Violence in Central America continues to cause people to flee, despite falling homicide rates. Murders in Honduras and El Salvador fell by about 25 percent in 2017, but both are still among the most violent countries in the world. Street gangs known as “maras” are also ubiquitous and prey on small business owners and families through extortion. Many migrants this year said they joined the caravan because they felt there was safety in numbers while they traveled along the route from Mexico to the U.S. border. There is significant violence perpetrated by gangs who prey on migrants on the final leg north. I should add, there’s also a lot more to this spectacle than meets the eye. The timing is certainly interesting, coming as it does just before significant midterm elections in the United States. While the explanations given for the mass invasion attempt (whatever else it is, if it were successful in meeting it’s stated goal, it would be an invasion) sound plausible, and certainly apply to the real pawns migrants, who knows how much of this is really staged?

If the real migrants want to better their lives, I have a better, more long lasting, if more radical solution. I am not joking. If I were fleeing my home due to violence, I would welcome the opportunity to fight back. But fight back against whom? Most of the violence in the Central American countries and Mexico is due to drug cartels, and the corruption among the police departments and other authorities who are in the pay of the drug cartels. So how can a bunch of peasants who have no military training or weapons, take on the organized and powerful drug cartels? What if the United States were to say to the migrants, “you can’t come here, but if you want to fight for your homes and your future, we will equip you and train you.” Think of this as an updated Bay of Pigs counterattack. “That didn’t work out”, you say? My idea is very different.

These “re-patriots” would not be trying to overthrow a government, nor invading from the sea, like in Cuba. They would have the support of the populace, because that’s who they themselves are and what they want is the same as what everyone back home wants, except the drug cartels and corrupt police and politicians. They aren’t soldiers, but with the proper training and equipment, they would be formidable. An idea like this cannot be done halfway. If we are going to suggest and support it, so that these migrants can have a real impact on their own country and lives, we must be willing to give them every chance of success, even if it means deployment of American air power. The actual military tactics and logistics are beyond the scope of this blog, but isn’t the idea sound? After all, if you were offered the choice between leaving your homes and families to a corrupt Wolfpack, and wandering around trying to get into countries that don’t want you so you can constantly worry about being deported, vs. taking back what is rightfully yours and determining your own future, even at the risk of your life, what would you choose? Of course, I am putting this question to the real migrants, not the agitators, criminals and terrorists trying to infiltrate. If our Founding Fathers had not risen to the challenge of fighting for their homes and freedom, where would we be today?

What was “common” sense?

There are so many really stupid ideas promulgated by the perfection progressives (what I call “leftists”, “cultural Marxists”, “social justice” panderers, and their allies, because they demand perfection–by their definition–in our culture and institutions, and define truth as anything that’s new and untested), I hardly know where to begin, so I will zero in on a few of the more egregious or hypocritical. Most of the really, really bad ones concern the mutant children of the “sexual revolution“: gender bending dysphoria; sexual confusion-orientation; porn. But before I get to that mess, lets consider culture/ancestry dysphoria. Multiculturalism is celebrating other cultures, as long as you don’t step over the invisible line intocultural appropriation. Elizabeth Warren, a white on rice (or mayonnaise on white bread, if you prefer) Senator from the formerly great state (you’d have to go back before the Kennedy clan) of Massachusetts is the butt of jokes for claiming native American victim hood by virtue of a smidgen of Cherokee and Delaware ancestral genes. DNA testing, hardly a precise science, has pegged her as 1024th Indian. I would imagine that many Americans have that much Indian heritage. The Cherokee Nation has also weighed in on the matter. Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. issued the following statement: “A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America. Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”

Then there’s the “sexual revolution.” Unlike our forerunners in 1968, we of 2018 have access to something they didn’t: 50 years of sociological, psychological, medical, and other evidence about the sexual revolution and its fallout. Thanks to the #MeToo movement, the time has come to examine some of that evidence. After all, at the root of all these stories of harassment and abuse is this: men forcing themselves upon women who did not want their attentions; men who have insisted, sometimes plaintively in their public apologies, that in their own minds, the acts were consensual. Even former president Bill Clinton had the temerity to tell PBS NewsHour in early June, “I think the norms have really changed in terms of what you can do to somebody against their will.” Where do otherwise sophisticated and knowledgeable men learn such obtuseness? Surely the credit belongs in part to pornography, which, like the revolution of which it is a mutated child, has become ubiquitous. Abuse of the first amendment probably started with defenders of pornography. Pornography deforms individual relationships and works its way like invisible ink into the scripts and expectations of our time. Finally, the #MeToo movement offers an opportunity to bridge ideological divides as the traditional cheerleaders of the sexual revolution reckon with the empirical record. The recent scandals have produced powerful new evidence for everyone to weigh. What are the two common denominators among the alleged offenses? One was the assumption that all women are sexually available at all times—what might be called the sexual revolution’s first commandment. The other is that many exploitative men have taken cover in venues closely identified with pro-revolutionary politics: Hollywood, corporate print, radio, and television journalism, Silicon Valley—and even the New York attorney general’s office.

Yes, cads and brutes have always been with us; yes, accusations shouldn’t be lodged cavalierly and need to be assessed carefully; and yes, as the examples of Fox News and other workplaces have revealed, harassment and accusations of harassment aren’t just a progressive thing. Even so, it is undeniable that a disproportionate number of the prominent men brought down by these scandals have been identified with—and sometimes indistinguishable from—a political worldview that enthusiastically embraces the tenets of the sexual revolution. Indeed, many proudly wore their feminist credentials on their sleeves. These men infiltrated important cultural precincts under the false flag of being “pro-woman” and succeeded because they were seen to be on “the right side” of the abortion debate. Wolves in Planned Parenthood clothing, they used pro-abortion politics as protective cover for harassment and exploitation, just as Playboy founder Hugh Hefner, who advocated for legal abortion many years before Roe v. Wade, also did in his lifetime. Just as castration to produce eunuchs as harem servants was disgusting until it became a cure for male gender dysphoria, thus defended and even promoted by the PP set, so was pornography disgusting until it became a “first amendment issue.” Except that it never was, because the First Amendment was addressed to Congress only, not individuals and groups who recognized the blight that porn has become.

Who gets the benefit of the doubt?

Ashley is 35, married to a man who loves her, operates a computer consulting business which makes a high profit with a minimal time commitment from her. Her husband David is Vice President of a large corporation and his income alone puts them in a very wealthy bracket. They are both very healthy, with a very active lifestyle. They take a lot of trips, many of them adventure travel type trips that require a high level of effort. Ashley’s lifes looks like it’s perfect. There’s only one problem, and it’s serious to her. Ashley is pregnant, and she and David do not want children. One day Ashley pours our heart to her best friend, Brenda, who listens sympathetically, but gives her encouraging reasons why she should consider having the child anyway. What Ashley doesn’t know is that Brenda and her husband Charlie have been desperately trying to get pregnant and she cannot conceive. They are finally decided that it’s time to adopt a child but they’re a little bit nervous about not knowing a child’s parentage. As Ashley pours out her woes about all the lifestyle adjustments she would have to make if she had a child, Brenda’s lower lip starts to quiver a little bit. After awhile, unable to hold back her feelings any longer, Brenda begins crying, which increases in intensity as Ashley looks on in shock.
“Brenda,” she says, “what’s wrong?” Brenda looks at her and says, “we’ve been trying to get pregnant and I found out that I can’t conceive, but we are desperate for a child. We are finally ready to adopt, and would love to adopt a child of yours.” “Brenda,” Ashley says, “I would have to carry that child for 9 months. That would really cramp my lifestyle. I would rather abort. After all, it’s my body and lifestyle. Don’t I have more rights than a fetus?”
Does her lifestyle trump the right of her child to live? “It’s a fetus, not a child you say?” What exactly is a fetus? If left to develop, what will a human fetus become? Certainly not an aardvark nor zebra nor anything in between. After all, it’s a human fetus. So now you say, “look at how you set up the situation; this woman is uniquely selfish and unsympathetic. This situation is hardly typical. What about products of rape, incest? What about poor people who can’t afford to care for a child? What about the health of the mother?” According to the Guttmacher Institute, only 7% of all abortions are done for reasons of rape/incest or health considerations. 93% of all abortions are elective, meaning the woman has personal or lifestyle reasons for not wanting the baby. So let’s talk about setting up artificial situations. Do you mean someone like “Jane Roe”? 

The following is her January 21, 1998, testimony given to the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights.

“Good morning. My name is Norma McCorvey. I’m sorry to admit that I’m the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court didn’t happen the way I said it did, pure and simple. I lied! Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey needed an extreme case to make their client look pitiable. Rape seemed to be the ticket. What made rape even worse? A gang rape! It all started out as a little lie, but my little lie grew and became more horrible with each telling.

“Not only did I lie, but I was lied to. I did not come to the Supreme Court on behalf of a class of women. I wasn’t pursuing any legal remedy for my unwanted pregnancy. I did not go to the federal courts for relief. I met with Sarah Weddington to find out how I could obtain an abortion. She and Linda Coffey said they didn’t know where to get one. Sarah already had an abortion but she lied to me just like I lied to her! She knew where to get one, obviously, but I was of no use to her unless I was pregnant. Sarah and Linda were looking for somebody, anybody, to use to further their own agenda. I was their most willing dupe. Since all these lies succeeded in dismantling every state’s protection of the unborn, I think it’s fair to say that the entire abortion industry is based on a lie.”

You mean artificial situations like that?

Back to Ashley and her dilemma. Since Ashley’s decision to abort her fetus is completely elective, and I’m calling the baby a fetus to get a lot of guilt out of the situation, don’t you think we should explore the nature of the fetus and determine if a aborting him or her is actually murder? Because we Americans like to give people and situations the benefit of the doubt, shouldn’t we also give to fetus the benefit of the doubt? The doubt being, is he or she human or not, is killing him or her before birth murder or not? 

From day 12 through week six, this being is termed an embryo. According to the American Pregnancy Association, “everything that is present in an adult human is now present in the small embryo.” From week seven until birth, it is named a fetus; however, scientific facts and terminology regarding prenatal development cannot on their own answer the question of the prenatal being’s ethical and political status.

If the fetus is not human until birth, what’s your criteria for humanity? Is it cutting the umbilical cord, is it being independent of the mother, is it feeding through the mouth rather than the umbilical? Is it the first cry into or the first breath from the air? How do you know that she didn’t cry in the womb? When does the soul enter the body? If it were medically feasible to cut the umbilical cord before birth, would the baby not be human in those moments before coming out? At what point during pregnancy can the fetus be considered human? All these questions highlight the arbitrariness of trying to define human life apart from conception. If you would give the fetus’ life priority over the mother’s lifestyle, could it be that you are conceding a high probability that this fetus is really a person? Is so, does a change in the mother’s circumstances change the human status of her fetus/baby?

 

The Christian Worldview 

Our existence is a train to somewhere. Do we know where it, thus we, are headed? Are we headed anywhere? Are we on a wheel through which we are endlessly reincarnated, forever working out our karma, as the Hindu believe? When my oldest daughter was in 6th grade, we sent her to a Classical and Christian school. The first day, she came home and asked THE question: “Daddy, my teacher assigned us to ask our parents, Do you believe history is linear or cyclical? What does that mean?”
I understood that the question referred to the competing worldviews of Christianity vs. everything else. If history keeps repeating with no end, the Bible is false. If history has a beginning, which fable, myth, or philosophy best explains the beginning of everything? What if the best explanation isn’t a fable after all? Once you accept a particular belief, how well does it explain the end of history. Everything that has a beginning has an end, and most philosophies can construct the beginning of everything by utilizing various writings, discoveries, or almost anything pre existing, ending up with a theory plausible enough to adherents.

But the end? Pure conjecture….unless it isn’t. But how could it not be? It’s the future, which implies a stream of time from a source to….what? The Christian worldview says history is linear. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:1. The end, “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away. And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Revelation 21:1-5.

When you look up the definition of the word history, you are taken back to the Greek root, historia. Why Greek, why not further back, to the roots of the Greek word? Most manuscripts which make up the New Testament were written in Greek, though a few were in Aramaic or Hebrew. I suggest the word itself refers to “His story”. “His”, who dat? The Word of God–also known as Jesus Christ and the second person of the Trinity– created the universe and is the eternal now. While history is linear, the Creator views it all simultaneously. This stream called time flows, but our senses and mind can only apprehend a single point, where we are now. The future is around the next bend, the past no longer exists. Points along the bank exist in our memory–imperfectly–but the stream itself moves on, untethered to the bank back there.
In between the beginning of history and the end of all things is His-story. But what about the end of you? What is your fate after death? Is there a more important question to ask, or to answer? If you belong to Jesus, you don’t have to wonder.

I can’t wait to oppress someone today.

Yep, that’s what I say every morning when I get up and look forward to my day, “who can I oppress today?” I can’t really help it you see. I’m an American white male. Does the fact that it’s my nature to oppress others give me a pass or something? No way. Other identity groups may claim they can’t help themselves either, but that excuse is only acceptable for those who have accumulated enough oppression points (you’ll find out what I mean directly). My biggest fear was running out of identity groups to oppress, until a high school in “flyover country” gave me fresh ideas. John F. Kennedy High School in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is using a “Diversity Toolkit: A Guide to Discussing Identity, Power and Privilege” that includes education on gender-neutral pronouns, discussions of sexuality, and anti-white propaganda for an English class! According to the genius who created the program: “Most individuals are both a target and an agent of oppression, due to ‘internalized subordination’ and ‘internalized domination’. Because of these internalized factors, individuals have ‘unearned privilege’.” Wait. Doesn’t the word “privilege” itself denote an unearned advantage? I guess they teach everything but English vocabulary in this English class.

Now it’s time for Uncle Curmudgeon to teach about oppression points. Below is a chart from the toolkit showing “target groups” (the oppressed) and non-target groups (the oppressors or agents of oppression).

The chart leaves out the latest oppressed group, so I direct your attention to the graphic above the title of this blog post. Notice that person all the way to the right, who appears to be a female with red hair. (By the way what’s up with the agent of oppression having red hair too? I have brown hair, am I only a half-assed agent?). You may wonder what group does she represent? The answer is a new oppressed group called gamers, many of whom were formerly known as Goths, people who keep to themselves and are outcasts in general. You see, anyone can be added to a target group or a new target group created, but only white male Americans can be oppressors. Each target group is worth a certain number of points, and the more groups you can claim membership in–hello Elizabeth Warren–the more oppressed you are! The highest score wins! What? I don’t know, maybe sympathy hugs. Just make sure that the trans male who hugs you doesn’t grab your ass.

This toolkit is such a great idea that they want to hoard it, so students are supposed to abide by a Confidentiality agreement: “Each participant within the community needs to feel that he/she can trust that what is shared with peers will not be shared outside of the group.” I can’t imagine why the school district would not want the students to share their enlightenment with their parents????

Now let’s see, I’m in a target group for disability and Vietnam veteran, but a non-target/agent for everything else, so how many oppression points do I get? The answer is none, because my oppressor score significantly outpoints my oppression score. Bummer! Seriously folks, have you been “marginalized?” I am not talking about real physical harm here, nor legal or financial crimes, but more rather stuff that you got emotionally upset about. If so, you can continue to moan and march, or you can take the advice of my hero, Booker T. Washington. Any of these would change your life:

Success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome.
If you want to lift yourself up, lift up someone else.
Associate yourself with people of good quality, for it is better to be alone than in bad company.
Excellence is to do a common thing in an uncommon way.
Few things can help an individual more than to place responsibility on him, and to let him know that you trust him.
Nothing ever comes to one, that is worth having, except as a result of hard work.
No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem.
I will permit no man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him.
There are two ways of exerting one’s strength: one is pushing down, the other is pulling up.
You can’t hold a man down without staying down with him.