Network Marketing Today

Network Marketing has always been a profitable way to market a product because it uses word of mouth to promote a product line.  Incentives to work hard in selling products and to become a personal user is accomplished by a Distributor Marketing Plan.

Most popular Marketing Plans include three to five levels or variations of a binary plan (where a distributor works two or more direct legs as independent businesses).  Often new recruitments in the individual legs of a binary system (or variations) are placed under other distributors to build up a leg; however, the person with whom the recruit is placed under may not have had any part in the recruiting of him or her.

  • Bonuses go to the sponsor that the person is placed under with the idea that total volume will increase and so will everyone’s bonus increase.
  • This is NOT usually true when the new recruitment you brought is placed under someone above you.
  • The bonus goes up and not down.  For example, Sandy gets Connie to a meeting and tells her about the products and the marketing plan.  When Connie signs up, she is placed under Chris. The person who got $1700 checks was Chris, who did absolutely nothing in sponsoring Connie, and Sandy gets a $300 check on Connie’s volume.  This is the negative side of binary systems.

With every Network Marketing Plan I’ve seen or been a part of,  except for Amway, the upper level tiers make a bundle of money off the downline.  Many of those at the very top do not use the same Marketing Plan as the downline because they came in on the ground floor or more likely, they bought their position.  This means their profits are based on the entire business and does not stop at levels or sponsorship.

Some Marketing Plans, such as Amway, are the most profitable for a distributors when it pays on total volume (on all levels) of the business. Some plans pay a different percentage on total volume from a distributorship when it qualified at higher levels than their sponsor’s.

What separates Amway from other Marketing Plans is a distributorship that can reach the top level (i.e., $7500 total volume), break away to become it’s own business, and the sponsor will still receive a percentage of that distributorship’s total volume (even at Diamond’s level or whatever level).

I am praising Amway as being the best Marketing Plan.  I use Amway to show the differences in the old standard of Multi-Level Marketing to Network Marketing Plans used today.

Is It A Pyramid?

What makes a Marketing Plan a pyramid is the inability of downline to recruit and make the same income as upline.  In other words, they’ll never make their money back on salespeople because there’s no one left to recruit!  Their opportunity to recruit ends.

I remember when Amway was investigated around the late 1970’s for an illegal pyramid and was found “Not Guilty”.   From that investigation, I learned how to quickly spot an illegal pyramid.

When the market is saturated with new distributors who are in the same pool as others trying to recruit.  For example, those who got into a business early are at the top of the pyramid and they’ve already made their money on the hundreds of new recruits.  Yet now, all new distributors have to compete with hundreds of distributors for the same small pool of potential recruits. The odds of a new recruit making his or her money back are worse than playing roulette in Vegas (source Taylor).

Most Network Marketing Companies are reputable and have an honest record after they have been in business for several years.  However, send them packing when someone approaches you with a “ground floor opportunity” and says you can make a lot of money within a short period of time?

If you want to use and abuse your friends and associates to make money off their trust or ignorance, then you will do just that in spite of what I say. There will always be people such as these so be leery of them.  You will easily find them in the entrepreneur world so you would be wise to stay far away from them.  You will lose your own reputation by being associated with them and you may never again earn trust from those you know.

My recommendations are as follows:

  • Take your time before jumping into a new “ground floor” business.
  • Test the integrity of those upline from you.
  • Evaluate how committed top upline are in teaching and practicing sound business principles.
  • Listen to what they teach and consider if it makes sense to you or if it seems more like a bunch of hype to get you signed up quickly.
  • Realize that “group meetings” are useful in getting you around other associates, and helpful in you evaluating the upline.
  • However, keep in mind that group meetings are also useful in getting you caught up in the enthusiasm of new recruits and people who are signing up at the meeting.  These activities often get you to step in without much time to test the business and upline.
  • If they are in a hurry to get you signed up, then that should cause you to be cautious.
  • Don’t be afraid to immediately walk away when something seems wrong or too hard to believe; which means you should drive yourself to the meeting versus meeting in your home or at a group meeting so you can leave when you want.
  • Be sure to ask a lot of questions to see how the perspective sponsor and/or upline responds.

If you have questions, feel free to send me an email with your questions.

 

Advertisements

IS IT DISCRIMINATION TO SHOW ID BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO VOTE?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1229754673734437&id=199938786716036&fs=1

I don’t believe it is when you consider ID must be shown for many reasons that have nothing to do with discrimination.

Proving you are who you say you are is obviously necessary to keep the votes honest…since so many people see no problem with corrupting the voting process and the foundation of our democracy.

Please,  will you pass along this posting to your associates?

 

Are You Really Willing to Pay the Price?

The Demise of America

2nd_amendment_give_a_damn

Do you have any idea (realistically) of what the price will be for standing up as a patriot against this administration’s goals and New World Order?

Do you know what price your family will pay for what you say and do ?

What makes me ask these questions is a posting I saw on Facebook today.  The post was about the Texas Nationalist Movement and how to achieve Texas independence: Tarrant County Texas Nationalist Informational Meeting.  As I started to make a post about it on Facebook, I received a lot of flack from a family member about it and here’s why.

Tell me how Texas can become independent without bringing down Obama’s wrath on everyone who signs the petition to secede?  HAS ANYONE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT QUESTION AND FOUND ANSWERS?

We are not the same U.S. we used to be.  Heck, even the Judges on the bench of the Supreme Court and…

View original post 2,177 more words

You Will Likely Be Forced Into Obama’s Civilian Army

You Will Likely Be Forced Into Obama’s Civilian Army Yes, this is an old report from WND but I just got around to reading it. I was so alarmed by this report, which answers my question about where he will get his civilian army from, that I had to tell you about it in case you have not read this report on WND. If you do not subscribe to WND, I strongly advise you to do so.

If people do not stop being complacent and do not become involved in saving America’s Freedoms and the values of our Founding Fathers , then they will rudely awakened when it’s too late do to anything!!

They are so close to completing their “TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICA” that they have no problem with Biden announcing  New World Order Coming to America;  that’s awfully bold and brazen!

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WND EXCLUSIVE

SPECIAL FORCES COMMANDER:

‘CONSTABULARY FORCE’ COMING

Says Obamacare leading U.S. down pathway to socialism

Published: 03/25/2013 at 9:14 PM

Obama_eyes

The surge of bullet-buying confirmed by the federal government – purchase estimates run into the billions of bullets – even as the U.S. military scrimps to find training ammo is raising lots of questions about the government’s so-far unexplained actions.

But a video that has been around since last year is being forwarded across the Internet as an explanation.

The six minutes recorded by Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, retired, warns that America is well along the pathway that other societies have used to bludgeon and beat their populations into submission to socialism. Even to the point of establishing a “constabulary force” to control the people.

Maybe those bullets do have a destination.

Boykin now is executive vice president of Family Research Council. But during his military career, he was one of the original members of the U.S. Army’s Delta Force. He ultimately commanded those elite warriors in combat operations. Later, Boykin commanded all the Army’s Green Berets as well as the Special Warfare Center and School.

In all, Lt. Gen. Boykin spent 36 years in the army, serving his last four years as the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence.

On the video, Boykin explains simply that he knows the standard process for creating a socialist or Marxist state because he studied it as a military officer.

His concern is that the six steps “done in every Marxist insurgency” now “are being done in America today.” He lists them: 1. nationalize major sections of the economy (the corporate bailouts), 2. redistribute wealth (the man appointed to head Medicare said health care is “nothing but a redistribution of wealth”), 3. discredit opposition (Boykin said he’s “never been so angry” as when the Obama administration called returning vets, pro-lifers and others a terror threat), 4. censorship (since old guard media already was in line, Obama’s censorship has been through “hate crimes” legislation aimed at Christian pastors and others), 5. gun control (see Washington’s present agenda), and 6. a constabulary force.

That would be “a force that can control the population,” Boykin warned.

To those who say that isn’t present in the U.S., he responds, “Let me remind you that prior to the election (in 2008) the president stood up and said if elected he would want a national civilian security force as large as and well-funded as the military.”

WND reported on Obama’s demands at the time for a “civilian national security force.”

What he actually said was:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” he said. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

video-need-civilian-army

“Hitler had the brown shirts,” Boykin said.

He said while people may not think it’s happening, such a force already is in the law – of Obamacare.

“There are paragraphs that talk about the commissioning of officers in time of national crisis to work directly for the president,” he said. That’s “laying the groundwork for a constabulary force that will control the population in America.”

Boykin’s recommendation?

“Look at what’s happening. Get out and do something to help stop something. Use our constitutional tools. Let your congressman know how you feel about this. Be a pain in their neck … .”

WND previously reported on the Obamacare section allowing for the military like force.

According to Section 5210 of HR 3590, titled “Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps,” the force must be ready for “involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises.”

The health-care legislation adds millions of dollars for recruitment and amends Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204), passed July 1, 1944, during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency. The U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is one of the seven uniformed services in the U.S. However, Obama’s changes more than double the wording of the Section 203 and dub individuals who are currently classified as officers in the Reserve Corps commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.

The following is the previous wording of the act as of 2004, before Democrats passed the health-care legislation


Wording of Section 203 of Public Health Service Act before Obamacare amendment

The U.S. Public Health Service website describes its commissioned corps as “an elite team of more than 6,000 full-time, well-trained, highly qualified public health professionals dedicated to delivering the nation’s public health promotion and disease prevention programs and advancing public health science.”

As stated in the health-care legislation, “The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.”

WND also reported in January when a Rand Corporation report proposed the federal government create a rapid deployment “Stabilization Police Force” that would be tasked with “shaping an environment before a conflict” and restoring order in times of war, natural disaster or national emergency.

CLICK HERE TO READ “BIGGEST FEARS ABOUT BIG BROTHER COMING TRUE” FROM WND

Amendment Defining Marriage

support_traditional_marriage

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments challenging Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment in California defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  Use this link to sign the petition in support of traditional marriage: http://bit.ly/XER0ge

CNN states: “The stakes, though, are decidedly clearer. In the case argued Tuesday and another to be heard on Wednesday, the nine justices could fundamentally alter how American law treats marriage.”

The problem most Americans have with challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage (and same sex unions) by going to the Supreme Court is that a small group of people are trying to force their lifestyle on the majority who voted against it.  United States of America is a nation that (supposedly) is ruled by law.  Therefore, when the people of California (and in other states) voted down same sex marriage/unions, the people’s vote should stand.  Keep in mind that, before an election, an item must gather enough signatures on a petition to be put on the ballot; the outcome of the election sets the law.

Proponents of same sex marriage/unions used everything within their rights (along with violence) to get out their message to people and to motivate their supporters to vote.  When the decision was made on proposition 8, the topic should have been over and done with, but supporters of same sex marriage/unions won’t take “no” for an answer.  They believe their lifestyle should be recognized legally by the state in spite of election results.

The problem with taking California’s proposition 8 ban on same sex marriage/unions to the Supreme Court is that, if the Justices vote against California, the federal government would be negating a state’s authority on marriage.  And that is exactly the problem Justice Kennedy has with making a ruling on this matter; believing the federal government should not be intruding on a state’s authority to regulate marriage.

To the extent the swing justice [Justice Kennedy] is wary of the political implications of striking down all states’ marriage laws, then he might not want a ruling that would set the logical precedent for such a move.  …Cato Institute

It was noted in a letter from ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) several years ago that legitimizing same sex marriage/unions would be no different than legalizing relationships between first cousins, brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, and polygamy.

Use This Link to Watch Video on Supreme Court and Same Sex Marriage

Is the question really about procreation, equal rights, or REDEFINING MARRIAGE? Redefining Marriage is the problem most Conservatives have about courts giving same sex the right to marry and raise children.  The concern with same sex marriage/unions is that children will become confused about the role of men and women and relationships when the people they learn from are confused about these roles.  This seems to be a legitimate concern, which was discussed to a small degree in the CNN video, but it is misrepresented as a procreation issue and not a role model for what it means to be a man and what it means to be a women.

  1. News for same sex marriage

    1. Fear of gaymarriage backlash far-fetched
      Chicago Tribune ‎- by Clarence Page ‎- 51 minutes ago
      Supreme Court justices justifiably have the jitters about a public backlash if they overreach in the samesex marriage cases they are...
  2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samesex_marriage

    Samesex marriage (also known as gay marriage) is marriage between two persons of the same biological sex and/or gender identity. Legal recognition of 

  3. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/politics/samesexmarriage-court

    4 days ago – Supreme Court justices seemed reluctant Tuesday to extend a sweeping constitutional right for gays and lesbian to wed in all 50 states..

  4. Rush Limbaugh: Samesex marriage will be legal nationwide | The …

    news.yahoo.com/…/rush-limbaugh-predicts-samesexmarri
    Chris Moody
    by Chris Moody – in 36 Google+ circles – More by Chris Moody

    2 days ago – From the blog The Ticket: On his radio program on Wednesday, conservative host Rush Limbaugh predicted that samesex marriage would 

  5. Obama: Samesex marriage constitutional, but an issue for the …

    http://www.cbsnews.com/…/obama-samesexmarriage-constitutional-but-a…

    2 days ago – President says in Telemundo interview he hopes the Supreme Court recognizes samesex marriage as a state decision.

  6. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…samesexmarriage…/c8d85442-95ad-1…

    3 days ago – The justices question whether the time is right to rule on California’s voter-approved ban.

This Video Says It All

530660_10151367963229281_373339377_n

 

This video makes the point that the 2nd Amendment is not about controlling assault weapons or about guns used for hunting. It is about our right to protect ourselves from mobs and government. I could not have made the point more clearly than this woman did.

Reprint From www.the912Project

563638_566373640043974_1334320399_n

 www.the912project.us/   by Jared Law

The justification for law-abiding citizens to keep & bear arms is as foundational as the right to life, liberty, free speech, religious expression, etc. As many intelligent people have said time and time again, without the 2nd Amendment, there is no 1st Amendment.

From Adam and Eve, to you and I, anybody who wishes to arm themselves, so long as they do not use those arms to oppress others, and deny them their Constitutional rights, here in America, may, and that right is protected by the immortal words of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which was, of course, included in the Bill of Rights that James Madison and others insisted on, before the Constitution was ratified.

Here’s the text of the Second Amendment, which is so critical to the securing of our liberty:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And the Militia, in those days, just as it is (whether some admit it or not) today, consisted of every able-bodied man and older boys, who were capable of fighting.

Not only is it our Constitutional right to keep & bear arms, but it is a NATURAL LAW right, with which we are Endowed by our Creator, as the Declaration of Independence so eloquently reminds us:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

One cannot reasonably ignore that foundational text of one of our most important founding documents; it we have the UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE, we have the right to self-defense, and we cannot really enjoy liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, in this life, if our life is cut short by a violent criminal (or tyrannical government), now, can we?

The the laws of nature and of Nature’s God grant mankind the right to self-defense. The principle of self-defense is such a fundamental one, that even the most peaceful major world religions, Judaism and Christianity, allow for the shedding of blood in self-defense. Denying Americans the fundamental right to keep and bear arms isn’t just unconstitutional. It’s immoral; if you deny somebody that right, then their blood is partially on the hands of those who instituted, and supported such regulations.

Here’s one of my favorite video clips, which includes five words that express how all Americans SHOULD feel about their 2nd Amendment rights:


From My Cold Dead hands

Every genocidal dictator in world history of which we’re aware had a policy of disarming the general population of the target nation. From Mao to Stalin to Hitler, all Marxist dictators wish to be able to slaughter innocents who disagree with them, without having to deal with a resistance that can shoot back. The Principles of Freedom enshrined in the Constitution are as necessary for a fullness of human happiness and prosperity as oxygen for us to breathe is necessary for our continued survival.

The Bill of Rights

The Militia of a nation are its able-bodied men. The right to keep & bear arms is a sacred right; it guarantees the security of a free state, from all threats, both foreign and domestic.

Any who wish to infringe upon this right must be viewed with extreme suspicion, if a people wishes to remain free. America has, for far too long, tolerated politicians’ demonizing of those who freely exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

It isn’t just time for that to stop, it’s time to actively work our tails off to ‘reset the system,’ and get legislation passed which recognizes the constitutionality of keeping and bearing arms, and which eliminates ALL REGULATIONS except keeping the dangerous mentally-ill and violent felons from lawfully exercising this right.

And access to ammunition, ammo clips, reloading supplies and equipment, gunsmithing, and other attendant devices, supplies, technologies, and materials, must be likewise protected. Americans have the right to purchase arms and attendant supplies at market cost, uninflated by artificial, bureaucratic means.

Rhetorical question: What have YOU done to prepare yourself and your family, so that you need not fear? Do you have sufficient food, water, fuel, clothing, boots/shoes, medical supplies, essential drugs, guns, ammunition, etc. stockpiled against the time of need?

If you haven’t get purchased your first pistol, revolver, home defense/combat shotgun, bolt action, lever action, or semiautomatic rifle, or battle rifle/machine gun, why not? What about stockpiling food, water, medical supplies, essential drugs, guns/ammunition, fuel, clothing & shoes (especially for growing kids), and other essentials? When will you begin to prepare? If you spend money on tobacco and/or alcohol, on Cable TV, on gambling, on eating out at restaurants, or any of the comforts of our modern society that aren’t essential to your survival, but not firearms, ammunition, food, fuel, water, medical supplies, essential drugs, etc., when are you going to wake up, and prepare for what’s coming?

Hopefully this week.

But enough of my words. I have a more comprehensive 2nd Amendment discussion thread on the way, but I thought that since we had that network downtime today and last night, I ought to get something useful and informative out before I finish my longer commentary and coverage of the growing threat to our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And while the purpose of this discussion thread is to let David Barton impart some of his impressive library of knowledge to us, via Glenn Beck’s TheBlazeTV, let’s first enjoy the NRA’s new ad exposing the incredible hypocrisy of the Barack Hussein Obama Regime and American Marxists:

And now, here’s the headline story from The Blaze:

——–

Do You Know The History Of The NRA And The 2nd Amendment? David Barton’s Fascinating Lesson

Jan. 16, 2013 8:00am Tiffany Gabbay

As stronger sentiment concerning gun control mounts on the American streets, Glenn Beck invited renown historian and Wallbuilders founder David Barton on his Tuesday evening program to provide viewers with a comprehensive overview of the Second Amendment as a foundation for liberty and freedom.

Beck was compelled to provide this in-depth look after 19 potential executive actions were identified to move the Obama administration forward with new gun control measures. Those measures include but are not limited to: requiring mental health screenings of both the buyer and seller; banning military-style “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines; issuing a statute prohibiting gun trafficking; and an “end” to the “hobbling of federal agencies.”

“This is not about preventing mass-murders it is about eliminating your right to bear arms,” Beck slammed. “This administration will never waste a good emergency.”

“Americans need to know where the Second Amendment even comes from…The history of our ‘why and how,’ and how it has shaped our foundation of freedom.”

A glance back in time

Barton, who has an extensive knowledge-base in American history, said that the Second Amendment is truly about a “certain set of principles.” He added that people should not separate the Second Amendment from other amendments, particularly the first five, as they are all aligned and part of one larger concept of protection of one’s self, religion and property. In other words ”unalienable rights.”

The Founding Fathers, according to Barton, believed that God gave these rights to mankind and that no government could take them away.

“That is why our government is different,” he explained, “other world governments trampled peoples rights… the idea was to prevent the government from ever trampling our rights.” He added that unlike any country in Europe, Americans insisted the government could not touch what God had given them.

The Founders also used the philosophy term “laws of nature and nature is God,” which Barton informed is contained in Blackstone’s commentary on the law. The idea is that certain things come to one from nature, such as the deep-seated biological mechanism of self-defense. The historian also noted that James Wilson, a signer of both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence noted that the law of nature is to defend oneself, and that — through the castle doctrine — a private citizen failing to defend his home or family — even with deadly force — would be considered negligence.

As the interview continued, Barton went on to explain how different the times were at America’s founding, and that citizens could even penalized for not carrying a gun. The topic then veered to the lawless days of the Wild West, its religious revival and the role of Texas Rangers in enforcing the law.

In addition, Barton addressed the founding of the NRA. While some like to demonize pro-Second Amendment group and even call it prejudiced, it turns out the powerful group was in fact started by two Union generals in 1871 as a means to driving out the Ku Klux Klan and ensuring that blacks, who although then-free were not allowed means with which to defend themselves — could in fact legally own a gun.

Barton also noted that even after the Whiskey and Shays rebellions, and even the assassinations of Lincoln Garfield and McKinley, calls for gun bans never came into play. In fact, the times even bolstered the Second Amendment.

It was not until the aftermath of Malcolm X, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King’s assassination that then President Lyndon B. Johnson sought stricter gun control. Ironically, said Barton, President Reagan — although having survived an assassination attempt himself — was very much an adherent to the Second Amendment and opposed then assistant and White House Press Secretary Jim Brady’s bill.

Psychology professor Warren Throckmorton, a scholar who has challenged some of Barton’s facts in the past, took note of Barton’s assertion, however, revealing that Reagan actually favored the Brady bill. In an op-ed for the New York Times, Reagan wrote:

This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.

Reagan, while a proponent of the Second Amendment, had a more moderate view on gun control, revealing that people’s views on the issue, irrespective of political leaning, is as multi-layered as the types of legislations that have been brought to bear concerning the matter. For deeper insight into the Gipper’s views on gun control, please visit TheBlaze’s in-depth article here.

When asked how American citizens should react if government were to seek to claim their arms, Barton said that there is a host of lawyers working bro-bono to step in and help protect citizens’ gun rights.

——–

Make sure to share this discussion thread with everybody in your email lists of tea partiers and/or 9.12’ers, in addition to your peers who you believe will make good recruits to our movement!

——–

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?