Wednesday, September 6, 2017

The Real Problem with DACA

Today, I saw lots of angst and anger on social media because of President Trump's announcement to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA, AKA The Dream Act).  Many folks have categorized the President's action as racist and anti-immigration.  Actually, it is neither.

The Constitutionally defined role of the Executive Branch of our government is to execute the laws of the land.  The Executive is not to make laws.  Nor is the Executive to determine if laws are just, or unjust, constitutional or unconstitutional.

The role of the Legislative Branch of our government is to make laws.  The role of the Judiciary is to determine the justice or constitutionality of the laws.

In June 2012, when President Barak Obama implemented DACA as an executive order, he was making law.  He was impatient with the Congress and their inability to provide any meaningful action on this important issue.

The issue of people who were brought here illegally as children and have known no other country since their early childhood is one which tugs at both the heartstrings and purse strings of our country.  Statistics reported in connection with this group of about 800,000 people show that they are great contributors, not drains on our country.

Is it any wonder that the overwhelming sentiment regarding these people is that we need to find a way to make them legal residents within our country, preferably with a path toward citizenship?

While I sympathize with President Obama's frustration, when he implemented DACA, he was violating the constitutional separation of powers.  It is for actions like this that he was accused of being Emperor Obama.  In a monarchy, all three branches of government converge in the person of the monarch.  When a US President starts making laws, that president is taking upon his office the powers of the other branches of government.  That violates the US Constitution and is a serious threat to the freedoms we all enjoy.

Rather that ascribing foul motives to the President's actions, which may or may not be true, let's address the facts of the matter.  When President Trump issued an executive order to countermand DACA, he was undoing the unconstitutional act of his predecessor.  In doing this, he strengthened constitutional government in our land and he put the onus for dealing with this issue squarely onto the Congress, where it belongs.

He effectively gave Congress a six month deadline to take action.  If they fail to pass a law to address this issue in the interim, that is their failure, not his.  The fact is, all they really need to do is to adopt the DACA as President Obama put it forward and make it the law of the land.  They will have made a law that many people like, and the Executive will be happy to enforce.

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2017 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Learn more about Tom Sheppard at his Amazon Author Page:
Get your own copy of Tom's blockbuster Godvernment today.

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Colliding Warships: Tom Clancy and Tom Sheppard

authors tom sheppard and tom clancy

Tom Clancy had a vivid imagination.  I read and enjoyed his books.  He often wove intricate plots which involved governments or quasi-governments engaging in elaborate schemes to hide their hands in world events until they were ready to make their dramatic, public moves.

To be very blunt, recent headlines from the Pacific read like plot points in a Tom Clancy novel.

In the past year, we have had dramatically escalating conflicts with both China and North Korea.  At the same time, the US Seventh Fleet, our primary military force in that part of the world has experienced an unprecedented series of four mishaps with our warships in that part of the world.

Most recently, the USS John McCain was hit by an oil tanker bearing a Liberian flag.  Before that the USS Fitzgerald collided with a container shipped bearing a Phillipine flag.  In May the USS Champlain collided with a South Korean fishing boat.  In January, the USS Antietam ran aground, hitting an uncharted sandbar outside of Yokosuka Harbor, Japan.

What all of these accidents have in common is that they all involved guided missile ships of the US Navy.  The sort of ships that could effectively do two things, very well:

  1. They could shoot down the missiles coming out of North Korea
  2. They can project force to deter China's aggressive moves to lay claim to all of the South China Sea.
While the failure on the Antietam is probably nothing more or less than a fluke or a failure of the captain or crew, the other three incidents all leave everyone who is aware of the training and capabilities of these ships wondering how this could happen?

The saber rattling of North Korean President Kim Jong Un has been very much in the national and international headlines because of the dramatic nature of his threats.  Test launching missiles capable of reaching the US and working to mount nuclear warheads on them is no idle threat which can be ignored.  One of the countermeasures the US has deployed is to visibly sail our guided missile ships off the coast of Korea as a clear threat to shoot down whatever the North Koreans put into the air.  And the threat from these ships is no fiction.

With the ability to launch multiple supersonic, guided missiles in seconds, as well as putting nuclear capable cruise missiles into the air, the destructive power of just one of these ships is considerable.  North Korea is right to feel intimidated by them.

The actions of the Chinese, because they are less dramatic, have not received nearly as much attention as those of the North Koreans.  But the danger they represent is more probable than a nuclear launch from North Korea.

For years now, the Chinese have been laying claim to atolls and sandbars in the far reaches of the South China Sea.  They have been building up these tiny islands into places capable of hosting airfields while they have also been mounting shore defenses on them.  Along with each claim they stake, they have been claiming that nearly all the waters of the South China Sea are owned by China.

The dashed red line on the map below shows how far China is trying to extend their reach.  This is a lot farther than the 12-mile limit recognized in international maritime law.  It would effectively make the South China Sea into a Chinese lake.  Much as the Roman's referred to the Mediterranean as the Mar Nostrum, "our sea", the Chinese would be able to refer to the South China Sea as their sea.

Countries much closer to these atolls have protested and made counterclaims.  But what do the Chinese really have to fear from the Philippines or Vietnam?  If either or both of those countries tried to go to war with China over these conflicting claims on the atolls, China would destroy them economically and militarily in a matter of weeks.

Only Japan and US have sufficient presence and power to counter the Chinese ambitions in this area.

So why should we care about what is happening in the South China Sea?  Because, experts estimate that about 1/3rd of all global shipping transits the South China Sea.  It is among the busiest shipping lanes in the world.  If China were to succeed in laying claim to its waters, they could control or prohibit trade through those waters.  This would either drive up the costs of everything, by forcing longer routes around those waters, or put a stranglehold on 42% of  goods going in and out of Japan.

The chart below shows clearly that it is not just Japan that would feel the impact.  Germany, France, the UK, Italy, India, Brazil, Canada and the US would all feel significant impacts if the flow of trade through the South China Sea were restricted or taxed by the Chinese.

All of this brings me back to the intricate plots of Tom Clancy.  In one of his novels, he imagined someone high-jacking a passenger jet and using it as a weapon, crashing it into the US Capitol Building.  Then on 9-11 four passenger jets were high-jacked and used as weapons, crashing them into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.  My point here is that whatever an author can imagine in the way of plots and intrigues can also be imagined and implemented by the agents of malice in the world.

To me, when I look at the news coming out of that part of the world, I see signs of a well crafted and cleverly executed plot to dramatically decrease the ability of the US to project power in that part of the world during a very critical time.  Don't be surprised if we see significant escalation in the aggressive moves coming out of China, North Korea or both during the next few months.

Given that North Korea is effectively China's guard dog, it is not at all beyond belief that they are encouraging Kim Jong Un to launch his missiles and taunt the US simply to distract attention away from the more strategic moves China is making a little further south.

Add to this a bit of additional history, from just a bit further back.  When we lost Vietnam, we lost the military use of the deep water port of Cam Rahn Bay, on the West side of the South China Sea.  When the Philippines booted the US out of Subic Bay we lost the military use of a deep water port on the East side of the South China Sea.  Deep water ports are not all that common and they are necessary for the large vessels of the US Navy to dock.  The loss of these two ports means that big US warships, like air craft carriers, would have to come from the ports of Japan or Australia to enforce international law in the South China Sea.  The further we have to stretch to reach the area of contention, the more vulnerable and weaker we are militarily.

If the US is unable to effectively project significant power in the South China Sea, international law won't matter.  China will use its own Navy and its string of air strips, with accompanying military planes, to enforce its control of the area.  If they can set it up, then the only viable alternatives will be to submit to Chinese extortion or for the US to use gunboat diplomacy to force the opening of the shipping lanes.  Getting in a shooting match with China, on their doorstep does not guarantee a positive outcome for the US or the freedom of shipping in international waters.

If an author like Tom Clancy, or me, can imagine it, then the folks in the halls of power have probably already figured out how to make it happen.  Think about that, the next time one of our ships in the Seventh Fleet gets clipped.  The "accident" probably isn't an accident at all.

Some links to related news stories:
Tom Clancy's Executive Orders

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2017 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Learn more about Tom Sheppard at his Amazon Author Page:
Get your own copy of Tom's blockbuster Godvernment today.

Friday, August 18, 2017

Antifa and the Alt-Right

In the aftermath of the violence in Charlottesville President Trump noted that both sides were to blame for the violence.  His remarks set off a firestorm of righteous indignation in both major political parties.  Most of those excoriating him failed to perform even the most rudimentary examination of the facts to determine if, perhaps he was speaking from a well-informed position, instead of assuming he was shooting from the lip.
The reality of the violence in Charlottesville is that it was the entirely foreseeable result of bringing two avowedly violent groups together: violent white-supremacists and the violent anti-racists known as Antifa (more on both these groups later).  Because both groups are very ready and willing to engage in violent, physical conflict, and are on opposite sides of the topic of racism, for them to come together into the same physical space is like bringing lit matches and gunpowder together. It really doesn’t matter which one you think is which, when they come together, a violent explosion is nearly 100% certain.
Some of President Trumps critics claim that when he pointed out that Antifa charged in with clubs in hand, he was making Antifa and white supremacists morally equivalent.  That is blatantly twisting the facts.  He made no argument for the moral equivalence of the two groups.  Rather, than address the morals of either side, he noted the detestable actions of both sides.  As much as most of us may hate what they say, white supremacists have the same rights to free speech as anyone else.  No one has the right to use violence to silence the free speech of another.  If you start down the road of justifying allowing one group to violently silence another in the name of moral rectitude, soon you will have a society of self-righteous prigs living in an echo chamber where only the views they like will be heard.
So, where do these two groups come from and what does the name Antifa mean?  Antifa characterize themselves as anti-fascists.  The white supremacists commonly wave the NAZI flag and use the symbols of NAZI Germany in their materials along with the Confederate “Stars and Bars” battle flag.  The white supremacists call the Antifa socialists and communists and the Antifa call the white supremacists fascists and the Alt-Right.   The name calling, on both sides, is missing the mark more often than not.
Wikipedia gives a pretty good definition of fascism as “a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce.”  This gives us a four-point checklist to keep in mind as we identify fascism.
1.       Authoritarian Nationalism
2.       Dictatorial Power
3.       Forcible Suppression of Opposition, and
4.       [Governmental] Control of Industry and Commerce
Leading up to the American Civil War, the Northern States were characterized by being a racial melting pot that fueled an emerging industrial economy. They were anti-slavery.  However, that virtue may have been as much of an economic as a moral stance.  Slave labor was a threat to the working poor of the North.
Northern culture was characterized by a work ethic focused on individuals making their own way and eating their bread in the sweat of their brow.  The majority of the norther colonists had come from commoners and religious dissenters who fled Europe to avoid death at the hands of clerics and aristocrats.
Southern culture was oriented more toward the notion of European aristocracy.  Wealthy southerners sent their daughters to Paris for their finishing school.  The European notion of aristocracy eschews manual labor as a sign of poverty and commonality.  The ideal aristocrat does not labor for his money.  Rather, his time is free to hunt, to whore, and to adventure.
This culture of indolence sat at the top of the Southern social model and its values filtered down throughout the society all the way to common men who wore their indolence as a badge of honor.  In spite of their impoverished circumstances, they placed greater esteem on hunting, whoring and adventuring than in hard work.
This cultural conflict is part of the reasons the State of Missouri enacted an extermination order on Mormons.  Mormon converts, coming mostly from the New England area at that time, migrated to Missouri to establish Zion.  Their inherited ethic and regard for hard work directly conflicted with the indolent ethic of the Missourians.  Adding in religious elements to this basic clash of culture and intolerance, misunderstanding, and violence were almost inevitable.
Fast forward to the years just before the Civil War.  You find the Republican Party leaning heavily toward abolition of slavery.  You find Northern states ranging from open hostility toward slavery to tolerance as long as it stays out of their state.
In the South, you find aristocratic Democrats holding the levers of power and doing all in their power to preserve the institution of slavery because of its key role in their agricultural economy and Southern society.  They were ready and willing to use the powers of government to preserve slavery by putting down slave rebellions (individual and collective), and even waging open war on other states which want to abolish slavery in the entire Union.  Their behavior was definitely racist.  They were possessed of violent nationalism, although it was directed to supporting the distinct sovereignty of each state as though it were a nation.  They lacked dictatorial control and lacked the governmental control of commerce and industry that is a hallmark of fascism.  On balance, the Confederate States of America was a racist, but not a fascist government, scoring only two of the four points on the Wikipedia-derived checklist for fascism.
When the Emancipation Proclamation appeared during the Civil War, impoverished Irish in the North, at the bottom of the economic ladder engaged in race riots against the blacks, out of fear that the newly freed slaves will displace them and push them even further down the economic ladder.  This behavior was definitely racist, lacking any clear government support, they little resemblance to fascism.
After the Civil War, the Democratic party continued to support racism and its members filled the ranks of the Ku Klux Klan as the paramilitary arm of the Democratic party, using terror to resist allowing blacks to enjoy all the rights of citizens.  If a dictatorial power existed within their ranks, it was a secret which has never been revealed to the wider world.  So, they continued as racists, but not full-blown fascists.
Fast forward again to the time leading up to World War II.  In Europe, as well as the United States, communism and its younger brother socialism gained substantial political grounds since the emergence of the nation with a communist government (post-Czarist Russia). 
Where the communism strives to establish one world government where government owns all and individuals own nothing, and we are all part of one family of man, its little brother, socialism has a slightly different vision.  Socialists want to apply the governmental principles of communism while retaining the pride and distinctiveness of each nation.  These pre-WWII national-socialists diluted the absolute anti-capitalist communism to embrace some elements of capitalism, as long as it operates under the close control of the government (and can be used as a means of extending the reach of government without all the budgetary and bureaucratic mess inherent in government).  The new national-socialist-psuedo-capitalists gained the name of fascists. The fascists tweaked their nationalism (twisting it would have required greater effort) into a form of racial pride based on their nation, thus incorporating racism into their fascism.
The racist-fascist formula succeeded in gaining a much wider following than communism, and in short order, fascist governments were running Germany, Italy and Spain.  In America, they were openly admired by rich and powerful American Democrats such as John D. Rockefeller, Franklin D.Roosevelt and Henry Ford
In the polyglot world of America, the conflation of nation and race is not so intuitive as it was in Europe.  A quick study of European history shows that the nations of Europe arose around concentrations of racially and ethnically distinct groups.  The blond and red haired Aryans of the north were the core of countries such as Germany, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark.  The dark haired, white skinned Celts (the Romans called them Gauls) were the primary race in what is now France and the isles of Britain.  The dark haired, olive skinned Latins were the racial core of Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece.  These racial alignments, reinforced by centuries of racial warfare, pre-disposed the Europeans to embracing racial politics.
When the fascists took power in Germany, they brought with them an overweening pride in their race and asserted that the Aryans represented the only pure race among all the white races and that as such they were the master race which by rights of its purity should rule all the other elements of the human race.  Part of their plan for achieving this world domination involved not only killing off the unfit among themselves, but also in killing off entirely all the “lesser” races of humanity.  If they had succeeded, their slaughter of the Jews would have paled compared to how many of the “brown” races they would have happily destroyed beneath the heel of their racist regime.
Ironically, their Japanese allies on the other side of the world, although they ignored the lures of socialism or communism in favor of their own aristocracy, decided that the nation of Japan and the Japanese race were the embodiment of the master race which owned the right to rule humanity.  They embraced all the hallmarks of fascism and racism.  They happily treated the Koreans, Chinese, Philipinos and whites all as less than human.
An unfortunate side-effect of this nationalistic furor with its racial threads was that racism and fascism became interchangeable terms in the minds of many people.   This is especially true today.  As a result, anyone embracing racism and most especially the notion of a master race is deemed a fascist.  Although this is factually incorrect, many of the racist groups supporting white supremacy further promote this error by embracing the symbols of fascism such as the NAZI flag.  Most of these groups are neither socialists nor truly NAZIs.  They typically embrace the concepts of rugged individualism that permeate the political right.  However, their use of symbols of fascism and the master race rhetoric of the fascists makes it simpler to label them fascists than to give them the more discerning and accurate label of simple racists.
From the time of the Civil War until the middle of the twentieth century, the scions of the Democratic party held the levers of power in the South and used them to disenfranchise the blacks until the Republican party forced the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s and used the power of the Federal Government to break the last vestiges of the Democrats’ use of the powers of government to support their racism.  After the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Democrats adroitly changed their roles from would-be masters over the blacks to their would-be protectors.  Many leading black pundits today recognize that the welfare state (of which the Democratic Party is the primary champion) is no more or less than another way to keep blacks dependent upon the Democrats by making them dependent upon the transfer of wealth from successful individualists into the hands of the plantation slaves who, for more than a century, depended upon the generosity of their white masters for the food on their table and clothes on their back (see Star Parker’s book, Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves the Poor and What We Can Do About It).
Recently, a movement known as Antifa (Anti-fascists) has appeared among the political left in the United States.  Although the Antifa attempt to link themselves to the historical anti-fascist movements in trans-WWII Germany, Italy and Spain, they define themselves as opponents to the likes of the white-supremacists, which they call the Alt-Right.  Because these white-supremacists are actually racists, not fascists, the legacy of the Antifa is not rooted in anti-fascism, rather it is anti-racism and more specifically, it is anti-white-supremacist.  The danger with being anti-white-supremacist is that it is easy to become anti-white, in reality or just perception.  Being anti-white is racism with a swap in roles for oppressor and oppressed.   
Calling the white supremacists fascists and the Alt-Right is inaccurate and misleading.  The reality is that fascism is not a political movement from the right of center.  It is a political movement from the left of center.  Racism too is not a movement from the right of center.  It has historically been used and supported by the Democratic Party.  Labeling Democrats as left and Republicans as right of center is as nuanced as saying that the sky above is blue and the earth beneath is brown.  The characterizations lead to misperceptions and hide the truth.  Although many Democrats embrace the political ambitions of the left, many leading Republicans do likewise.
In the US and most of the world today, the political left is the champion of the rights of groups over the rights of individuals, “authoritarian nationalism”, “dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and [governmental] control of industry and commerce” are the hallmarks of their vision for government.  The political right is the champion of individual rights such as freedom of speech, religion, association, and self-protection, smaller, less-intrusive government, and minimal governmental regulation of industry and commerce.
Government sponsored racism, is not an artifact of the political right.  The political right has its roots in respect for the rights and civic responsibilities of the individual.  It is embodied in such phrases as those found in the Declaration of Independence that, “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.  Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  These sentiments and philosophies allow no room for racism and certainly do not support any notion of a master race.  Rather, they point the mind toward the universal brotherhood of humanity as sharing a common creator.
Government sponsored racism, such as that found in the fascist nations of World War II, is only possible where despotism prevails.  It is an aberration when free people choose to unleash the powers of their government against a minority of any sort.  Although an aberration, it is not without precedent in the history of the United States of America.
Before the Civil War, the people of the United States of America supported and encouraged their government to wage open war against the members of the Mormon church.  The Civil War seems to have burnt out of the main of our nation the inclination to use the powers of government to oppress minorities, racial or religious.
I am sure some will argue that the wars against the Native Americans was a racist war that was supported by the people.  While there may be some truth of racism buried in there, the reality is that the Native Americans were (and are) sovereign nations (as well as peoples).  When the United States prevailed against them, the results were not racial cleansing, enslavement or extermination.  Rather, the results were disarmament, subjugation and restriction.
From my view of history, the racist strains of the US were scorched (although not entirely burnt out), root and branch, and the government sponsored racism of the south was broken long before the fascists of Europe arose to take a place on the world stage.  Those in this country with whom fascism resonated most were not Republicans, but old-guard Democrats who hewed to the notions of the Southern Democrats that whites are superior and that blacks can be excluded from the rights delineated in our founding documents because they aren’t actually human, or not fully human.
The scary part of this last point is that black supremacists today embrace the same notion, that whites aren’t really true humans.  The only true humans are those with dark skins.
Today, white supremacists and other racists want to implement government sponsored agendas of racism which are incompatible with the ideals of freedom and individual worth.  Those ideals are the hallmarks of the political right.
This white supremacist fringe is no more an alternate right (Alt-right) than West is an alternate North.  Those who seek to equate racism with the political right are either ignorant of the facts of history, or are selling something.  It behooves every responsible citizen to examine the motives of those who use labels to hide rather than to shed light on the true motives and ideals of others.

ADDED Material
Today's Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed piece about the Free Speech Rally in Boston.  They noted that Antifa was there trying to suppress free speech with fascist tactics.  There were about two dozen free-speech advocates at the rally and hundreds of Antifa-led counter protesters there to prevent anyone from being heard, except them.  The author notes, "Neo-Nazis and white supremacists may be a continuing American embarrassment and eyesore, but they are not today’s most pressing threat to our civil liberties."

The day before this article, CNN "unmasked" the Antifa as "undocumented immigrants, transgender people, low-wage workers, those who don't conform to the traditional 9-to-5."  They believe somehow that it will work to "use force in the name of eradicating hatred."  Like that will work?  When was the last time having someone punch you in the face made you want to agree with them and embrace love?  For most people violence only makes them want to respond with violence.  And violence inspires hatred, it doesn't eradicate it.

Here are a few more quotes from the CNN article...

"Antifa activists often don't hesitate to destroy property.."
"Antifa members also sometimes launch attacks against people who aren't physically attacking them."
"...members focus on outing people they believe are neo-Nazis, even trying to get them fired and evicted from their homes."
John Morley, in 1874, is credited with saying, "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him."  President John F. Kennedy repeated nearly the same sentiment many years later.  Antifa's methods lead me to believe that rationality is not at the core of their movement.  It is based wholly on emotion.  They are the leading advocates of mob rule in our country today.  And it was lynch mobs and mob rule that fueled and led the charge for racists throughout the civil rights era of the 60's.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:  I confess I was mildly surprised when mainstream media sources began condemning Antifa actions.  Then, I saw this article where no less a venerable liberal scion than Nancy Pelosi trashed Antifa (follow the link to the WSJ article).  Her statement must have given the green-light to the left-conforming editors and reporters of the mainstream media to decry the actions of their leftist allies who resorted to fascist behavior to violently suppress the free speech of others in the campaign to combat fascism.

Related Links:

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2017 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Learn more about Tom Sheppard at his Amazon Author Page:
Get your own copy of Tom's blockbuster Godvernment today.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Trump is a Danger to Our Well Being

Trump is a Danger to Our Well-Being

image of frank frazettas death dealer provided by tom sheppard
Death Dealer (C) 1973 Frank Frazetta
A CNN headline came through my newsfeed today stating that Trump is a danger to our well-being.  This isn’t the first time I have seen similar editorials from CNN and other sources.

  • On May 15 of this year CNN trumpeted, “Trump Again Reveals His Dangerous Incompetence”.  
  • On June 28 CNN noted “Trump Putting Journalists in Danger.”
  • On June 7, the Washington Examiner ( headline was “Trump’s  Decision on Paris Agreement Poses Great Danger.”
  • July 5 and again on July 22 linked Trump to the concept of danger in two separate stories, one about his campaign against fake news and another worrying about his inaction.
  • Slate, on August 10 linked Trump’s rhetoric with North Korea to danger for everyone.
  • The Washington Post on July 22 referred to Trump as “a Unique Threat to American Democracy.”

And, the consistent linking of Trump to the concept of being a danger isn’t confined solely to US publications.  Das Spiegal ( called Trump the most dangerous man in the world.  A piece reported by NPR on June 26 noted that a Pew Research poll of global respondents found a majority think trump is both arrogant and dangerous.

Trump’s critics have been consistently beating this drum that he is dangerous.

My response to all these alarums is this, “So, what's new?   The President of the US is always dangerous.”  The President of the United States (POTUS) has been the most dangerous man in the world since President Harry Truman ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.  Add to that, the POTUS has been the biggest single danger to the well-being of Americans since President George Washington.

The powers inherent in the Executive Branch of our government, as delineated both in the US Constitution, laws passed by Congress, and in the rulings of The US Supreme Court position POTUS to have significant impact on our well-being.  POTUS lawfully can:

  • Sign treaties with the UN and other foreign powers which give away our Constitutional rights and “become the law of the land.”
  • Initiate wars, as long as he doesn’t call them a war, or let them go on too long, as Commander in Chief of our armed forces.
  • Throw people in jail or spy on them (DOJ, IRS, Homeland Security, Department of State).
  • Direct the DOJ to enforce, or not to enforce, specific laws.
  • Direct the IRS to collect, or not collect, particular taxes (for instance the “Individual Mandate” from ObamaCare).
  • Create or eliminate regulations that affect almost every area of your life –
    • Your lights, heat, air conditioning, stove, oven (DOE),
    • your job (OSHA, Commerce Department, Department of Labor),
    • your health (CDC, NIH, FDA, Health and Human Services),
    • the environment and what you can do with the land you own (EPA),
    • what you can say and where (FCC),
    • what you can drive (EPA, FTA),
    • where many people can live (HUD),
    • what you can use to buy things (Treasury),
    • what you should be learning in school (Department of Education),
    • what crops you can grow and how you can care for them (USDA)
    • and the list goes on, and on.
Beyond these clearly established avenues to change our lives, there is the avenue of executive orders which, deservedly, awaken fears of extra-Constitutional actions flowing from the White House into the lives of many.

Regardless of who is POTUS, that person is dangerous to our well-being, as well as the well-being of nearly everyone on this planet (a few exploding nukes could ruin all our lives for generations).

With a list that touches almost everything in your life, it is beyond my comprehension why anyone would approach a presidential election with the level of ignorance that is commonplace in the voting populace of this country. 

President Donald Trump is neither more, or less, dangerous than any president has been since Harry Truman, or even since George Washington.

What all the folks promoting fear of President Trump have in common is that they are all advocates of social agendas which are not aligned with the values promoted by our current POTUS.

When Barak Obama was POTUS, folks to the right of center were just as alarmed by the treaties, regulations and executive orders which he promoted.  If you don’t know this, then you have never been on the mailing list of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and you have filtered out of your news feed sources like Fox News, Breitbart and The Wall Street Journal.

The reason the headlines back then weren’t filled with the same volume of portentous alarms is because the mainstream media sources (MMS) are almost exclusively inclined toward the socialist political agenda of the left of center.  The unfortunate reality is the “watchdogs” of our republic are too busy eating the drugged meat of the socialist-leaning left to bark at the leftist encroachments on freedom and prosperity in the US.  They have been retrained, like a version of Pavlov’s dogs, to bark only when the bell of the right chimes in the public square.

If you reflexively, uncritically, accept the news presented by the “major” news outlets, you have become part of the problem with politics, conflict, and civil debate in the US.

President Trump is dangerous.  He has power at his fingertips which is almost incomprehensible.  He is especially dangerous to the socialist agenda, just as President Obama was dangerous to the agendas of Federalism and Constitutional Conservatist agendas.

If the agenda of POTUS aligns with your own politics, then you will likely welcome his exercise of power to limit the actions of your opponents and increase the efficacy of the actions of your own faction.

The good news for everyone is that the checks and balances built into our government by the framers of the US Constitution are still functioning pretty well, in spite of many attempts by partisans of the left, center and right to cripple or kill them.  Every time I see these checks and balances in action (even when they don’t land in my favor), I thank God for the far-reaching genius of those men.

It is my greatest hope that the recent fear that has ripped through those who find Trump dangerous, will inspire those who feel it to do all in their power, today and tomorrow, to support and strengthen the reliance of our republic on the US Constitution, and help to limit the powers of government to be restricted solely to those specific areas delineated by the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and lawfully adopted amendments to the US Constitution.

The beauty of the US Constitution and the system of government we have built on that, is that it protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority as well as protecting the majority from the tyranny of the minority.

I also hope this unending “crisis”, manufactured by those who oppose the current POTUS, will inspire the members of the “fourth estate” to retreat from advocating any and all political agendas which have the effect (or objective) of disabling the checks and balances built into our government.

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2017 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Learn more about Tom Sheppard at his Amazon Author Page:
Get your own copy of Tom's blockbuster Godvernment today.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Zombies and Superheroes

Retrieved from ""

The Walking Dead are Among Us

Perhaps you don't believe it is true?  Consider that no less an authority on life and death than the first person to ever resurrect, Jesus of Nazareth confirmed that the dead walk among us.

In The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 9 verses 57 through 62 there is the account of two would-be followers of Jesus.  Skipping over the story of the first one, to the second he said, "Follow me."  This would-be disciple replied that he was willing, but first he wanted to go and bury his father.  Jesus replied, "Let the dead bury their dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God."

From more modern authorities comes this interpretation of the interchange.  On I found this:
"He was speaking of ...those who were alive physically but dead toward God in their souls."

Super Heroes are Among Us

Former Atheist CS Lewis noted that
"...the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which,if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship."
For some time I have puzzled over the popular mania about zombies.  Likewise, I puzzled over our obsession with super heroes, mutants, and stories of those with supernatural or magical powers.  I believe both fascinations stem from the same root.  Each of us knows that within us lie the seeds of life or death.  If our life is more like a walking death, than the robust super-charged life of a super hero, we feel the loss and yearn for more.  Or, some resign themselves to the life of the undead / unliving, believing that quasi-death is the inevitable fate of everyone and that true life is but a brief state that soon will pass to be replaced with unrelenting gloom.

Harry Potter is a very ordinary seeming boy suddenly learns that he is anything but ordinary.  His story resonated with children and adults around the world to the tune of more than 400 million copies.

All of us want to believe that there is magic, or a super hero within us, just waiting to emerge and transform our lives from humdrum to an extraordinary adventure.

Many of us go through our lives feeling like we are the walking dead.  While there are those among us whose lives are filled with life, vitality, abundance and joy.  These success stories seem to us like some sort of super hero story.

We buy all sorts of elixirs and snake oil remedies from people who present themselves as economic or spiritual super heroes.  Each bottle, book, course, boot camp, or certification is presented as an essential step to transform ourselves from zombies into super heroes.

Jesus of Nazareth was threatened with death by stoning when he told the people of his home town, "Ye are gods." (John 10:33).  The fact that he was quoting from the Old Testament (Psalms 82:6) didn't make the pill any easier for his hearers to swallow.

Are these sellers of success the keepers of the true path to change each of us from zombies into super heroes?  Unfortunately for those of us who have bought their wares, no.

Zombies and super heroes are all around us.  A few live lives of abundance while the majority shamble through theirs lives decaying a bit with every step they take.  What is the difference between the super heroes and the zombies.  What is it that can transform your world from death into life?


Joy is not about everything always being happy and fun.  Joy is about being grateful for both the pleasant and the unpleasant in your life.  Joy is about embracing life as it is, where it is, instead of always pining for whatever is not there right now.

You can live in a state of constant joy.  You can mourn for the death of a loved one while being grateful for the happiness that person brought into your life while they were here.  You can regret the loss of riches while remembering how good you felt when you used your riches to make lasting memories with others in you life.  You can dislike the taste of the poor food you eat while being grateful that you have tasted so much better.  On the flip side, you can take pleasure from the happiness you are experiencing this moment while being grateful that the pains which came before have heightened your appreciation for this moment of triumph.

Joy transforms our life from walking death into abundance.

How Do I Become Full of Joy (joyful)?

The simple answer is not the easy answer.  The simple answer is that you decide that you will be joyful.

This decision is simple, but not easy.  Once decided, thereafter it takes a lifetime of thoughts and actions to maintain.  Every time something unpleasant comes into your life, you must be sincerely grateful for it and appreciate how the unpleasantness makes the pleasant experiences in your life that much richer.  Every time something pleasant comes into your life, do not take it for granted. Rather, remind yourself of how your unpleasant experiences are making this moment of delight, richer and more wonderful.

When I was a young man, for nearly two years I lived in a third-world country.  While there, living among the people, I saw real poverty.  While there, I saw despotism and corruption both in the government and among the people.  I saw a government that the people had reason to fear and knew that Constitutional Rights was, there, a meaningless phrase.  Right along with things like the rights described in the Miranda Act to protect people from abuses by the police.

When I returned to the United States of America, I came back with a full appreciation for the astounding wealth enjoyed by even our poorest in this country.  I came back will a deep appreciation for the wisdom of the framers of our Constitution as well as gratitude for those who have stood in defense of our country, our freedoms and our ideals.  Because of my experience there, I look askance at those who claim that our political process disenfranchises them, and I realize that what they are really saying is that our system doesn't allow them to do whatever they feel like doing with impunity.

Living a joyful life doesn't happen by drinking some elixir, rubbing in some ointment, attaining some degree or certification, attending some course, or reading some book.  A joyful life is the result of an attitude of gratitude which absorbs and is grateful for both the happy and unhappy things in life.

For me, this gratitude is founded upon my knowledge of the divinity and love of Jesus Christ and God the Father.

Having the certainty that the Creator of the universe is also the literal father of my soul allows me to be grateful for the fabulous beauty of the world I see around me every day. Knowing that He created it, in all it beauty and variety, to gladden my heart, makes me pause to truly observe and absorb the beauty that surrounds us.

Knowing that one day, I will die, but that is not the end.  At his word, my spirit will rejoin my body and He will glorify and perfect me by his power and grace and grant me such opportunities that the mind of man cannot imagine or comprehend.  All the sorrows of this life will, at that day, seem but a small moment.  I am grateful He lets me experience the bitter so that I can savor the sweet.

Isaiah 55:1,2
"... every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.2Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.3Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you,..."
The walking dead around us are dead to the joy of life.  The super heroes among us are those who live joyful, abundant lives, filled with vibrancy and gratitude for both the pleasant and the unpleasant.

Note:  An article in the Wall Street Journal today says that "adolescents with a strong personal spirituality are found to be 60% less likely to be severely depressed as teenagers,"

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2017 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Thursday, April 6, 2017

In Defense of Inequality

Currently, there is an escalating discussion about equality in the US.  The Equal Rights Amendment is getting resurrected and there is a lot of talk about equality between the sexes.

I for one, am not in favor of equality.  To be clear, I am totally in favor of women getting equal pay for an equal job.  So, my umbrage with the equality movement is not about pay checks.  Rather, my problem with equality is with two things: One, is the fact that people, and genders are not equal.  Two, equal rights before the law are already ensconced in our statutes and regulations, both federal and state.

I don't plan to belabor the second point, although for those who advocate some additional statute promoting equality I say, "enough."  We don't need any more laws or statutes.  We need diligent enforcement of the laws we have.

My primary objection to the equality movement is because it is fundamentally in conflict with natural law and reality. 

Mathematically, equality is about interchangeability.  If A = B, then it doesn't matter if you need A or B, either will serve equally well.  However, human beings are not mathematical ciphers, and we are anything but equal and interchangeable.

If humans were all equal, we would all have the same height, weight, hair color, skin color, intelligence, and abilities.  Anyone who has ever considered the accomplishments of Olympic and professional athletes and compared their own abilities against that standard knows, those Olympians and professional athletes are not our equals in terms of their speed, their strength and their agility.  If they were all equal, we wouldn't have any Olmpics, because all the athletes would run equally fast, lift equal amounts, and perform equally well.

Having so simply demolished the ridiculous assertion that we are all equal, and showing that it is simple common sense, that makes me ask, "what then is the equality movement all about?"

I conclude that the equality movement is either about equal outcomes or about an effort to, in spite of natural law, make men and women interchangeable.

Anyone who has ever witnessed the birth of a child knows without any doubt that men and women are not interchangeable.

I hope the equality movement is not about trying to make men and women interchangeable.  The pernicious legalisms and unexpected and debasing outcomes that would result from an effort to make men and women legally interchangeable before the law would warp our society in ways that are almost unimaginable.

So, that leaves us with the drive for equality of outcomes.  The driving force behind the movement for equality of outcomes is envy.  Equality of outcomes is the idea that no matter whether we do lousy work or excellent work, we should be paid the same.  Whether we are smart or stupid we get the same grades in school.

Equality of outcomes is the envy of the lazy for the fruits of labor of those who are industrious.

I believe that discrimination against anyone because of their gender is wrong. It is also already illegal.  We don't need a constitutional amendment to protect the legal rights of women against discrimination.  And, not only don't we need it, the probability that such an amendment would be used to push for the legal interchangeability of men and women is certain.

Today, there is a lot of commotion about who uses which bathroom.  If the ERA becomes law, everyone will be using the same bathrooms and showers.  

You may think I am wrong on this.  However, if men and women are determined to be legally interchangeable, then they don't need separate bathing facilities in our schools or anywhere else.  In fact, the maintenance of separate facilities would be unconstitutional.

Tom Sheppard is the author of Godvernment: Government as God.

Monday, January 16, 2017

Left vs Right Politics and Libertarians

I am sure you won't be shocked to know that recently I have been exchanging some ideas online about politics with a variety of people.  During one of these exchanges, while we were discussing what is politically left and right, I found and posted the chart above showing politics as a spectrum from left to right with the axis reflecting the degree of power given to government versus individuals.

A friend countered with a diagram created by the founder of Libertarianism showing politics on two axes.  I have spent some time considering both and this post reveals the results of both my research and my thoughts on these two diagrams.

The Nolan Chart is named after David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party.  When looking at the Nolan Chart, you should first realize that it is a propaganda piece, devised by Nolan to attract people to Libertarianism.  It is not necessarily an accurate, unbiased view of the political spectra.  If it were unbiased, just above the image of the Statue of Liberty, at the apex of Personal Freedom and Economic Freedom would be the word “Anarchists” or their symbol.

For clarity about why I say this should be positioned there, here it the Wikipedia dissertation on Anarchism.
Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.  Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of all human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

As you can see from this definition, Anarchism advocates a stateless society where each individual is sovereign and self-governing.  

So, the true apex of this diagram should rest on Anarchism, not Libertarianism.

Self-governance is a key tenet of Libertarianism.  The notion being that any "crime" which only harms the individual is not something the state should govern or limit.  Hence, the Libertarian push to end the "War on Drugs" and legalize drugs as well as a host of other "victimless" crimes. Under Libertarianism, the legitimate role of government exists, but is limited to protecting society from predations, be those from other states or from individual or groups within the state.  Libertarianism expects everyone to be on their best behavior.  As do the Anarchists.

I suppose it is the issue of the need for the state that becomes a primary differentiating point between Libertarianism and Anarchism.  From the Nolan Chart it is inferred that the state continues to exist.  

I had to study the Nolan Chart for quite a while before it finally hit me what was really bothering me about the chart.  At the bottom of the chart you see two, diverging statements about freedom.

Going from the bottom toward the Left it reads "more personal freedom".  Going from the bottom toward the Right it reads, "more economic freedom."

I recalled having read that economic freedom has been found to precede personal freedom, so it seemed to me that this divergence of personal versus economic freedom was totally wrong.  Not trusting 100% to my memory, I did some research.  I found this very interesting treatise on economic freedom called "Freedom and Prosperity" by Jake Dubuque and "The Benefits of Economic Freedom A Survey" by Niclas Berggren.

Berggren provides some useful definitions.  He defines economic freedom as "a composite that attempts to characterize the degree to which an economy is a market economy—that is, the degree to which it entails the possibility of entering into voluntary contracts within the framework of a stable and predictable rule of law that upholds contracts and protects private property, with a limited degree of interventionism in the form of government ownership, regulations, and taxes. This is a negative concept of freedom: freedom to do something without being hindered, as opposed to freedom in the sense of having access to actual opportunities to do something ."

Key pieces of this are the "predictable rule of law that upholds contracts and protects private property" and "a limited degree of ... government ... regulations and taxes." [my emphasis]

He also defines political freedom as "participation in the political process on equal conditions, actual competition for political power, and free and fair elections" and adds the dimension of civil freedom, which he defines as "protection against unreasonable visitations, access to fair trials, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech." 

His definition of civil freedom seems to align somewhat with concept of personal freedom on the Nolan Chart.  However none of this addresses the incongruity of having personal freedom diverging from economic freedom.

Milton Friedman in his book Capitalism and Freedom explained that “the fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority.  The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated."

Logically, this is as true for personal freedom as it is for economic freedom.

Dubuque, notes that, "Freedom House’s Freedom in the World index is used to measure political freedom, while The Index of Economic Freedom, produced by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal measure the second variety of freedom.  These indices are compared to the GDP per capita of each country.  The results indicate that there is a significant correlation between each variety of freedom and wealth."[my emphasis]

The two indices of freedom, seem to buttress each other in every instance.

In addition to these contemporary studies which are conducted each year, many have looked at history and noted the direct correlation between economic freedom as a significant prerequisite to personal freedom.  In a Readers Digest article in July 1941 Max Eastman noted that “[Marx] is the one who informed us, looking backwards, that the evolution of private capitalism with its free market had been a precondition for the evolution of all our democratic freedoms.  It never occurred to him, looking forward, that if this was so, these other freedoms might disappear with the abolition of the free market."

Any student of western history can note how the rise of the merchant class preceded and led to the ultimate destruction of the system of serfdom which was the hallmark of the Dark Ages of Europe. The wealth of the merchants eventually put them on equal footing with the nobility and the increasing dependency of the nobility on the wealthy merchants forced them to concede the protection of law and receipt of freedoms which eventually trickled down to the commoners and liberated the serfs.

From history and from research it becomes clear that personal freedom and economic freedom do not diverge as shown in the Nolan Chart.  Rather they travel in the same direction. 

We now have uncovered two fundamental lies in the Nolan Chart.  The first is that the chart omits its true apex as Anarchy and the second is that the Left is not a protector of personal freedom.

Dubuque shows how this view that the Left is a champion of personal freedom arises from a contradictory reading of the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights, which was adopted 1948 by the General Assembly of the newly formed United Nations.  He notes that the rights noted can be summed up into three categories:
  1. Everyone is entitled to the rights set forth in the declaration and that discrimination before the law is unacceptable.
  2. Everyone has personal rights, including the rights “to life, liberty and security of person,” in addition to the rights to privacy, education, religious freedom, freedom of expression, and the right to own property.
  3. Everyone is entitled to participate in government, either directly or through elections.

Modern Progressivism/Socialism embraced by the political left asserts that none of these freedoms noted above can be truly enjoyed if the individual lacks the basic necessities of life.  They take Maslow's Hierarchy Needs and hold society responsible through the power of government coercion to see that the foundational needs are met so that the self-actualization needs at the top of the hierarchy can be met for everyone.

While this is helpful to understand why the Left manages to appeal to many people it doesn't directly rebut the lie shown at the bottom of the Nolan Chart.

Dubuque speaks to that directly: 
If the socialist ideal of economic security for all is realized through a centrally administered economy, then freedom from necessity does not create freedom in any real sense of the term.  While socialists can argue that physical depravation severely constrains individual freedom, the material security that their philosophy provides does not liberate the individual.  Instead they are made dependent on the state.  Even though the state’s motives might be altruistic, it still must have the power to enforce the regulations or central plan of the economy.  With such a concentration of power in government and the state of dependency it creates, the individual cannot be described as politically or economically free.  It doesn’t matter whether the government is a dictatorship or democratically elected by the majority; the state is totalitarian. As Milton Friedman writes, “fundamentally, there are only two ways of co-ordinating the economic activities of millions.  One is central direction involving the use of coercion – the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state.  The other is voluntary co-operation of individuals – the technique of the marketplace.”This simple characterization pointedly distinguishes between the two philosophies of economic organization available to governments.
[my emphasis]

This makes it clear to me that the coercive level of the state is the correct axis to apply to the political spectrum, rather than the double axes portrayed in the Nolan Chart.  The coercive power of the state must decrease to allow both personal and economic freedom and is an inverse of those two factors.

Note that the very first chart shows that our Constitutional Republic is actually to the right of Democracy.  This is because democracy, as was recognized by the Founding Fathers, quickly devolves into the tyranny of the majority and destroys the rule of law.

Our Constitutional Republic is the only form of government which is stable enough and strong enough to protect the rights of the individuals with the rule of law by limiting the coercive power of government.  W. Cleon Skousen had it right when he called the establishment of the United States Constitution a 5000 Year Leap in political freedom and government.

Finally, my research led me to the chart below.

This chart explains why so many people today are laboring under the mistaken assertion that Fascism is an artifact of the political right instead of the left.  Their teacher in school said it was that way and they never bothered to examine the premise for themselves and learn the truth.

Some might wonder that I would so indict our educational institutions.  Consider for a moment the significant influence that began to appear in our colleges and universities in the 60's and 70's.  The students who protested against the establishment of those days were heavily influenced by Marxism.  For decades now, they have been running our colleges and universities and educating the teachers who educate our children in public schools.  Considering that, is it really a surprise that we find our educational curriculum today is not only ignorant of many historical facts, but teaches not only falsehoods and has established a system which punishes independent thought and rewards the adoption of what the teachers promote as societal norms.


  1. The Nolan Chart is deceptive
    1. it omits its true apex of Anarchy
    2. it falsely portrays a divergence of personal and economic freedom
    3. the introduction of two political axes is useless and is an artifact solely to convey the incorrect notion that Libertarianism is a "centrist" approach to political positions.
  2. The "True Political Spectrum" is a more accurate and useful depiction of the political spectrum
    1. the coercive power of government is the central issue of both political and economic freedom
    2. the protections afforded to our economic and person freedoms are far to the right of the predatory policies of democracy, corporatism, fascism, socialism, progressivism, communism and all other forms of totalitarian political positions.

There are other conclusions you may draw, but I am highlighting these as central to my discussion with my friends.

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2017 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.