Sunday, February 14, 2021

Kudos for Christianity

Kudos for Christianity

Because Christianity has dominated European and American cultures so thoroughly and for some many centuries we often focus on current shortcomings and fail to see what massively good changes it has made in our world.

Psychologist and philosopher Dr. Jordan B Peterson, in his book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote for Chaos points out five important and truly good changes Christianity has made in our world.

KUDO #1 We are all equal before God

Christian doctrine elevated the individual soul, placing slave and master and commoner and nobleman alike on the same metaphysical footing, rendering them equal before God and the law…. Whatever its limitations, the development of such doctrine prevented king, aristocrat and wealthy merchant alike from lording it morally over the commoner.

Peterson, Jordan B.. 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (Kindle Locations 3614-3615). Random House of Canada. Kindle Edition.

The United States of America was founded on the notion that “All men are created equal…”  History shows that such an idea was totally the opposite of the prevailing political thoughts of the day.  At the time of our nation’s founding the principle of the “divine right of kings” and the ideas that aristocrats were put in place by God as his proxies to govern their subjects were the prevailing doctrines of governments, almost without exception, all over the world.

Peterson makes this point as well:

[Christianity’s] metaphysical conception of the implicit transcendent worth of each and every soul established itself against impossible odds as the fundamental presupposition of Western law and society.

Peterson, Jordan B.. 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (Kindle Locations 3620-3621). Random House of Canada. Kindle Edition.

KUDO #2 We have individual worth outside of any collective

Granted, Christianity failed to enshrine this concept into government until the rise of the United States of America, and so people suffered for nearly 1,800 years.  This simply highlights what a remarkable and highly principled group of men set out to draft the documents guiding the foundation of this nation and those who fought for its founding.  They were united in their belief that the monarch was no better before God than any of them.

KUDO #3 Government exists to protect our individual rights

Christianity made explicit the surprising claim that even the lowliest person had rights, genuine rights— and that sovereign and state were morally charged, at a fundamental level, to recognize those rights.

Peterson, Jordan B.. 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (Kindle Locations 3628-3629). Random House of Canada. Kindle Edition.

In the Declaration of Independence the phrase that immediately follows the statement of equality of all come the statement that God has given us individual rights.  We “… and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.”

The notion that people have rights which are not granted to them by their government but came instead directly and individually from God further undermined the prevailing political order which had governed nearly every nation in history before then, and most of those which came after, even up to our present day.  Further, the assertion that every individual had those rights regardless of their social standing, or political leanings, was a slap in the face to the prevailing orders.  Finally, the idea that governments had a moral obligation to recognize and protect those individual rights established the legitimate bounds beyond which government should not go and the legitimate purposes which it could, with God’s support, pursue.

KUDO #4 Slavery is bad

Christianity put forward, explicitly, the even more incomprehensible idea that the act of human ownership degraded the slaver (previously viewed as admirable nobility) as much or even more than the slave.

Peterson, Jordan B.. 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (Kindle Locations 3629-3631). Random House of Canada. Kindle Edition.

During these days when the cry of “systemic racism” is rampant it is worth noting that Christianity has quietly done the most good towards eliminating systemic racism than any other world religion.  It expressly elevated the inherent worth of the soul of the slave to the same level as that of the master.  Further, in the face of millennia of human history where enslavement of the enemy was the norm, it ran totally counter to the notion that might and power determines what is right and wrong.  Instead, it established the standard that doing good to others, regardless of their social standing or political views is right, while deliberately harming them, denigrating them, or enslaving them is wrong.

“The laborer is worthy of his hire.” 1 Timothy 5:18

Conclusions

I know some will take exception with these assertions.  Especially because they are so clearly pro-Christian.  The ignorance of facts manifested in the long-run of history does not justify the vilification of either Christianity or of this nation.

If it were not for these fundamental notions of Christianity it is doubtful that the United States of America would exist as it does today.  Without the United States of America and its attendant founding charters of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and The Bill of Rights, it is almost a certainty that the world today would be an uninterrupted patchwork of empires, kingdoms, and fiefdoms.  Nowhere would the twin notions of universal individual liberty, and universal individual responsibility stand protected by the armies and government of a nation.  The shining light on a hill that is the USA would not exist.  In fact, there would be no shining light on a hill, anywhere.

These kudos for Christianity are things that every non-elitist, every where in the world should recognize and revere, regardless of their religion or political views.  Without them, our religion and our politics would always be whatever the ruling elite told us they should be.


See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard

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 2020 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.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God

Sunday, December 13, 2020

The Next US Civil War



During the first Civil War of the United States of America slavery was a central issue triggering the war.  In like manner, the next civil war of the United States of America will be triggered by slavery.
Where the first civil war was triggered by the issue of chattel slavery, where human beings were owned, bought, sold, and discarded in the same manner as we handle automobiles today, the second civil war will be triggered by economic slavery.

Socialism enslaves the entire populace in much the same manner as serfs were enslaved by the aristocrats.  The aristocrats were the governing class and all the economic output of the serfs was directed for the benefit of the rulers.  Serfs were unable to move from place to place and were committed to whatever role the local aristocrat assigned them.

Socialist countries have operated in much the same manner.  Ordinary people had no freedom of movement with permits and they worked at whatever role the local party leader assigned them.  Meanwhile the fruits of their labors were not shared with them until after the ruling class took their fill off the top.  Whatever dregs remained was "generously provided" by the state for the workers to live on.

Today, in America we see a huge rise in ignorant youth led by calculating oldsters into embracing socialism.  I call them ignorant youth because they seem utterly uninformed about the horrors, depravity, scarcity, and oppression which socialism has inevitably visited on every country where it has been implemented throughout history.  I call them calculating oldsters because they are generally baby boomers who have been thwarted by democratic institutions and the US Constitution in their desires to exercise life and death power over others and understand that only by overturning the US Constitution can they gain the power they so desperately crave. Many of them even feel that they deserve this power because they are so much smarter than everyone else and should rule over us because of that virtue alone.  These power-hungry socialist leaders presume that they know what is better for us than we ourselves can decide.  They see us as the ignorant, unwashed masses who will only prosper under their benevolent despotism.

The ignorant youth and calculating, self-infatuated oldsters are all victims of their own echo chambers.  They surround themselves with like-minded and sycophants and banish all opposing voices.  Then, they point to the overwhelmingly supportive voices around them as evidence of the correctness of all their assumptions.

Unfortunately for them, there are three primary facts which they are ignoring at their own peril.  The first is that the actual number and percentage of Americans who fall into the category of "unwashed, ignorant, masses" are extremely few and most of them are in the camp of the socialists because the false promises of stolen wealth are more attractive than the prospect of having to work hard for a better life.  The silent majority who oppose the depredation and economic enslavement of socialism are far from being ignorant, they are however, long suffering, patient, and generally civil.  However, there is a wise saying that the socialists should remember, "beware the wrath of a patient man."

The socialists envision themselves as a storm of social change led by social justice warriors (SJWs).  Just as the swirling leaves dancing in the wind amid the first raindrops are just the harbingers of the real storm so too are these SJWs and their socialist overlords no more than leaves in the wind.  When the real storm comes, it will be the silent majority of freedom-loving Americans who are the storm.

The SJWs and socialists jeer at the silent majority and chant "Beware, the storm is coming."  The silent majority quietly whisper back, "We are the storm."

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard

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 2020 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.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God

Wednesday, October 21, 2020

Why is Roe v Wade Important? It's not what you think.

Photo (C) DepositPhotos.com

As the confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett proceed there has been a lot of chatter in the news about Roe v Wade.  For many years now, as candidates for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) have been considered their stance on the landmark case of Roe v Wade has been used as a litmus test to determine if they would have support from liberals and Democratic politicians.

Most of us hear "Roe v Wade" and we translate that into "Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion."  Unfortunately, we are missing the mark.

Most people know that Roe v Wade is the case where SCOTUS determined that women have a right to abortion on demand.  This 'right' can be phrased as reproductive rights, or the right to control her own body, or abortion rights.

When most of us hear about Roe v Wade, and whether or not someone supports it, our minds are focused on the topic of abortion.  However, the real importance of Roe v Wade is not about abortion.

When politicians focus on the potential of overturning Roe v Wade, they are not actually worried about abortion.  

The biggest issue embedded in Roe v Wade is not abortion.  The biggest issue is whether or not the judiciary branch is allowed to violate the Constitutional separation of powers and create laws in addition to interpreting the laws. 

As divisive and important as is the issue of abortion it is being used to mask this much bigger problem.

Abortion and Inalienable Constitutional Rights

Regardless of the moral issues of abortion, fundamentally it is a medical procedure.  It it irrefutable that the Constitution is silent of medical issues.  It neither grants, nor denies any medical procedure.  In short, our medical care is not one of our inalienable rights.

Similarly, the Constitution is silent on matters of financial security.  While we have the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as noted in The Declaration of Independence) nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, or the Bill of Rights is there any acknowledgement that financial security is a basic right.  

Separation of Powers
The biggest issue embedded in Roe v Wade is the separation of powers.  

In a monarchy the king or queen hold all three powers of government in themselves.  The monarch writes the laws, enforces the laws, and interprets (judges) whether or not the laws are being applied correctly. 

The separation of these powers out of the hands of monarchs are the greatest accomplishments of Western Civilization.

The importance of the Magna Charta is that King John was forced to give up both judicial power and legislative power.  The right to trial by a jury of peers was a direct removal of judicial power out of the hands of the King.  The perpetual establishment of Parliament was a direct removal of legislative power out of the hands of the King.

When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they built a government that exercised all three of these governmental powers in ways that allowed each branch of government to serve as a check on the power of the other branches.

In recent years we have seen substantial erosion of the separation of powers in several ways.

The Executive Branch Has Legislated
Executive Orders and regulations have the power of legislation.  When they are promulgated as clarification of implementation of legislation that may be proper.  However, in recent years we have seen Executive Orders from Presidents of both parties enacted in the absence of legislation.  The so-called Dreamers Act of DACA is one such order which, strangely, SCOTUS sustained as lawful when a subsequent President attempted to remove it through an Executive Order.

The Legislative Branch Has Executed
Recent years have seen the Legislative Branch enact laws to take over certain powers of the Executive by curtailing the Constitutional powers of the Executive relative to dealing with other nations.

The Judicial Branch Has Legislated
Here is the crux of this discussion.  When the Judicial Branch legislates, there is no effective check on their power by either the Executive or the Legislative except through defiance, censure, or attempts at counter-legislation.

They Key Question in Abortion
The pivotal issue of abortion revolves around the rights of the unborn.  The rights of the unborn hinge, in turn, on the question of when does the unborn become a "person."  Once the point of personhood is reached, then all the protections of rights by the State come into play and the rights of the mother versus the rights of the child must be mediated.  Today, many believe personhood is established at conception.  Others argue it happens only at birth.  Still others take stances in between those two extremes.

This question of personhood was the key issue for abortion debates in states across the US until SCOTUS codified it at the start of the third trimester, based primarily on the notion that from that point forward the unborn might survive outside the womb, albeit with assistance.  This survival concept is referred to as viability.


"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn.Stat., Tit. 22, §§ 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. [Footnote 1] While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. [Footnote 3-2] Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857, and "has remained substantially unchanged to the present time." Ante at 119.

There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

When SCOTUS decided Roe v Wade they established a right which had been rejected as such by the Founders.  From the previous quote, the research of Justice Rehnquist revealed that the Founders reasonably knew about laws on the books controlling abortion, yet they did nothing to establish it as a legal right.  I will grant here that at this point in time the rights of women were largely neglected.  They had no vote and their property rights were often violated.  So, it is arguable that, in this instance, the right to abortion was being ignored. 

If a woman's right to abortion were the only issue with Roe v Wade, I would happily leave it there and focus this discussion on the crux of that matter, i.e., when does the right of a woman for an abortion conflict with the right of the child within her to not be deprived of life without due process?  That is the real question behind the question of viability and personhood.

To be blunt, science cannot answer the question of personhood.  Science is unable to accurately determine when a 'fetus' becomes a person.  Religion too has difficulty in this arena.  Short of God granting a direct and incontrovertible revelation detailing when the spirit becomes a permanent tenant in the body there is no way for us to know when the transformation occurs from mere flesh and bone to a living soul.

The debate over personhood is critical because personhood is necessary for legal acknowledgement and protection of rights.  In other words, the right of a woman to end a pregnancy infringes on the right of a child to life at the moment the child becomes a person.  If that personhood doesn't occur until birth, or if it occurs at conception, then the rights of the woman must be balanced against the rights of the person being born.

Some of the research by the majority opinion on Roe v Wade makes it clear that religions too, including Christianity and Judaism have differed in their views over time.  Traditionally, they focused on the moment of birth, or when the baby "quickens" and begins to actively move and respond to external stimuli while still within the womb.  The focus on personhood at conception is a relatively recent standard for religion.

Because the debate over personhood is so critical (and essentially unknowable) it becomes a matter of conscience and is appropriately left to the People to decide as they debate, implement, and amend laws intended to protect the right to life of an unborn child within their various states, or even at a national level through the Congress of the United States.

They can change these laws as their understanding changes.  They can elect or throw out representatives who support or oppose their views, and thus the rights of women and unborn children can be dictated by the collective conscience of the People.

When SCOTUS ruled in Roe v Wade, they took this debate out of the hands of the People.  Rather than letting the People use the legal means available to them through our Constitution, by judicial fiat SCOTUS wrote law to establish a legal thresholds for abortion across all the States at once.  

In Roe v Wade SCOTUS ruled that during the first trimester of pregnancy it can be terminated at the will of the woman without any prohibition.  During the second trimester some concerns had to be addressed, and during the third trimester the only justification was the choice between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn.  

Justice Rehnquist's dissent puts the point on this issue.  "The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment." [my emphasis]

To be clear, the real reason why Roe v Wade is important to liberals is not because of abortion.  Liberals want Roe v Wade to be considered inviolate because it establishes a precedent of judicial legislation. 

Two Steps to Monarchy

The United States of America rebelled against Great Britain because they felt that their rights were being trampled upon.  When the Founders crafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights it was to establish a government which would protect the rights of the People from injustice by their government.  They rejected monarchy, democracy, pure republicanism, and other forms of government and instead opted for a Constitutional Republic.  

A republic allows the people to elect representatives who govern on their behalf.  A Constitutional Republic limits what those representatives can do in the name of the the People.  Unfortunately, as our country has grown is size our government has also grown in complexity.  The size of the Executive Branch has grown along with our country and the need to execute the laws has morphed into the creation of regulations which have the force of law.  This has led to the rise of an army of government bureaucrats whose sole reason for existing is to create, administer, and adjudicate the regulations of our government.

At any point we are just two steps away from being hurled from being a constitutional republic into becoming a de facto monarchy.  Those two steps are the absorption of the powers of government from one branch of government into the other. 

There are some who argue we are already dealing with lots of little monarchs in the form of unelected government bureaucrats who can write regulations, enforce those regulations, and rule on the proper application of those same regulations.  https://youtu.be/ZwmUH5AGydQ 

https://youtu.be/ZwmUH5AGydQ
Source: PragerU

Fortunately, Congress has enacted laws which can be used to limit regulations allow Congress to review and strike them down, although it hasn't happened very often.

However, when the judiciary legislates, there is no one outside the judiciary who has the power to nullify or roll that back. Congress can pass laws to contradict or clarify, but a legislative judiciary can simply ignore all that and rule according to their own whims, rather than limiting themselves to their legitimate role.

Conclusions

Judicial legislation is a serious threat to our rights because it violates the separation of powers in the US Constitution.  It removes one of the essential checks and balances designed to protect us from a rapacious government.

The real importance of Roe v Wade is not whether or not a woman has a right to an abortion.  The real importance, and the reason liberals use it as a litmus test, is that the way the decision was framed was a broad act of judicial legislation.  As such, it is a key lever progressives want to keep using to subjugate individual rights and individual will to their own will and whims.  When a candidate for SCOTUS embraces Roe v Wade, they aren't embracing abortion.  They are actually embracing judicial legislation.

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard

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 2020 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.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God

Friday, October 16, 2020

Two Things You Can Do to Make the World a Better Place Today


Many people today are very agitated about the state of our nation and the world. Everyone has their own reasons for being distraught. Some are so upset that they are taking to the streets in protests. Others are engaging in violent and riotous behavior, either believing that violence is the only way to effect change, or because they feel others have no right to their own views or property.

For many Americans taking to the streets is either too extreme, ineffective, or dangerous. They feel helpless in the face of these strong storm winds of change. Typically, the silent majority remains silent, speaking only through their votes, rather than carrying placards, or guns, in the streets.  However, times like these seem to require more than just silently casting our votes, because many interpret silence as acceptance.  That implicit acceptance feeds their belief that they are a majority rather than a minority view.

The reality is that the protestors and violent actors represent a small, but very vocal and active minority in this country. The majority of people believe that change can, and should be enacted through non-violent, civil means.

What is Fundamental Change?

While some of those espousing the need for change are calling for "fundamental" changes in this country, the majority of people are understandably reluctant and resistant to fundamental changes in our country. They have good reason for their reticence.

The phrase "fundamental change" literally means changing our foundations.  To be clear, the foundation of our nation is the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional Amendments.  So, anyone calling for fundamental change is calling for the abolition of the US Constitution either in whole or in large part.

The publicly stated premise of the need for this fundamental change is a false charge that the United States is fundamentally flawed and supports racism and other unjustices through the very concepts, ideals, and organization framed in our Constitution.

When you liken the Constitution to the foundation of country you can fully understand what people like CNN correspondent Don Limon means when he talks of "burn[ing] it all down."  If you want to replace the foundation of a building, in most cases, you have to tear down the whole building and start over.  This is exactly what these activists are talking about.  What is more, the new foundation they want to install is Marxism, also known as communism, socialism, statism, fascism, progressivism, liberalism, etc.

Institutional Racism Has Been Removed

I stated above that a key driver of demand for all this change is a false charge of fundamental racism.  This cry of fundamental racism is an extension of a similarly false charge of systemic racism pervading our nation and its institutions.

I say these charges are false based on the mountains of evidence which refute these charges.  Although there is not sufficient space in this short column (or in a whole library) to demonstrate all the evidence refuting these claims I will provide a few counterpoints to support my belief that these are false charges.

The Declaration of Independence which set forth the guiding principles which led to the creation of our Constitution boldly declares that, "all men are created equal" and all have the same rights. Further it states that the source of these rights come to individuals by right of birth, not dispensed or revoked by any government of men.  These declarations exempted no one.  

While it is true that the protection of these rights was imperfectly implemented in the Constitution, those imperfections which supported slavery and the limitation of rights based on race were cured with both the blood shed in the US Civil War and legislation in subsequent years including amendments to the constitution ensuring equal rights for all citizens without regard to gender, race, or religion.  The fact that those imperfections were cured within the current framework demonstrates that the foundation is both strong and worthy of continued support.

Racism Persists

While it is inarguable that racist and sexist behaviors continue to persist in individuals and even in some societies and businesses, the purging of racism and sexism from the halls of federal, state, county, and city governments across the United States of America is clearly demonstrated in both statute and court cases where such anti-social behaviors have been punished with both criminal and civil penalties.  Likewise court cases demonstrate that the weight of law has been consistently been brought to bear to rectify racist and sexist discrimination in both public and private institutions and societies wherever it has been found.

In short, the history of our nation shows over and over again that our system of government is very effective in the ongoing perfection of the defenses of our rights.  

A More Perfect Union

Some seek to discredit the Constitution and our national foundation by pointing out the flaws of the founders.  Noting how some of their behaviors were in greater or lesser degree in conflict with the ideals they embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  The notion here is that their creation could not be less flawed than the founders.

The reality is that the founders were not perfect.  Many of them had aspects of their lives which were not in full harmony with the principles they put forward in the framing of our government.  As noted above, some of their imperfections were passed on through the Constitution.  

While individuals have the option of repenting and changing their behaviors to align their actions more closely with their principles, those attacking the foundation of our nation would have you believe that no such means to remedy defects exists for our government.  However, as I mentioned above, those means not only exist, they have been applied and continue to be applied.  

Because of its amendments, our Constitution today is a more perfect document than it was when it and the The Bill of Rights were ratified back in 1787.  

Our founders declared their intent was to create "a more perfect union."  What the created was not perfect.  It was, however, more perfect than what it replaced.  And since then, it has been perfected further.

The world today is so much better than it ever has been before because of the existence and rise of the United States of America.

To this point in my column I have explained why our union does not require fundamental change.  What follows is to help to take action to protect our foundation from those who want to burn down our nation and rip up the US Constitution.

Action #1 - Stop looking to government to solve societal problems.

Those who are seeking to "burn it all down" are rationalizing their efforts on the basis that the government is not adequately addressing societal ills.  This argument rests on a false foundational premise.  It assumes that it is the role of government to cure the ailments of our society.  

The problem with this assumption is that our societal ailments are neither more nor less than manifestations of our own human imperfections and bad actions driven by ungodly defects in human nature.  When I say ungodly, I mean that literally. 

Ungodly defects in human nature are those motives, thoughts, and actions which are in conflict with the best attributes we believe are inherent in deity, e.g., love, charity, kindness, generosity, etc.  Any efforts which profess to be attempting to rid us of these ungodly defects are reflexively wrapped in a mantle of altruism because they appear to be aimed at making us better people and thus making the world a better place.

Government Cannot Change Human Nature

Unfortunately, there is no government or economic architecture which has ever been devised and tested in the history of this world which is capable of transforming human nature into a more godly version of itself.  That is the realm of religion, not government.

The reason governments fail to effect this transformation is because they, necessarily, are only able to control the outward behaviors of people and cannot force thoughts and beliefs to change on demand.  Those which have tried, notably communism is in this camp, have used mass extermination to eradicate those whose manifested thoughts and beliefs, or behaviors, failed to conform.

In contrast with the universal failure of government in this regard, religion has achieved the transformation of man's nature on several individual and at least two documented collective occasions.  However, the ability to sustain a community of such transformed individuals has been, at a minimum limited by individual life spans and sometimes they were exterminated by those with differing beliefs or agendas.  

Successful Individual Transformations Achieved by Religion

According to Buddhism, the Buddha successfully transformed his nature, and then taught others.

According to Islam, Mohammed's nature was changed as he became the prophet, and he then taught others.

Judaism and Christianity teach that Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Peter, Saul/Paul, and John the Revelator all overcame the defects in their human nature to transform into the kind of people we should be.  I omit Jesus of Nazareth from this list because although "he learned wisdom" in this life, his disciples believe he was perfect from birth, rather than achieving some transformation during his mortal life.  It is his nature that Christians seek to emulate.

Successful Collective Transformations Achieved by Religion

According to the Old Testament, not only did Enoch achieve personal transformation to the point where he "walked with God,"  the entire city of Zion, people led by Enoch, achieved that transformation to the point where all of them were "caught up into heaven."

The New Testament records a period where the disciples of Christ, for a time at least, achieved a very happy state where they had all things in common and had no poor among them.

Successful Individual or Collective Transformations Achieved by Socialism

  • The Soviet Union - NO 20+ million killed (just by Stalin) trying to make it work.
  • Cambodia - NO 2+ million killed trying under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to make it work.
  • Cuba - NO with nearly 100,000 dissidents dead, the country still looks like it is living in the early 1950's, at best. 
  • Venezuela - NO 7,000+ dead by "security forces" with violent unrest and rampant poverty
  • China - NO 45+ millions killed already with tens of thousands more in "re-education" camps right now.
With this sort of proven track record shown in this scorecard you would think that socialism in all its forms would be dead and buried, never to rise again.  However, like some shambling, shuffling, half-decayed horrifying walking-dead zombie in a B-grade film socialism continues to rise up and threaten the lives of us all.

If the zombie of socialism were as blatantly distinct from our current government it would be easy to hunt it down and kill it.  However, at least since FDR's New Deal, socialism has been making massive inroads into the American government.  So many socialist solutions have been implemented to lesser degrees that nearly the whole economy and government has been converted over to socialism piecemeal.  Don't believe me?  Take a good hard look through this lens.

Anytime government is tasked with doing something for people which they should be doing for themselves, that is a form of socialism.

Social Security is Socialism

The Great Depression threw many people into poverty and highlighted the fact that many of the elderly lacked sufficient means to support themselves in their waning years.  In response, Congress passed the Social Security Act and FDR signed it into law on August 14, 1935. The underlying notion of Social Security is that we somehow have a life-long right to economic security and everyone around us is responsible to protect that right.

Economic Security is Not a Right

Take note that economic security was not listed in The Declaration of Independence as one of our inalienable rights, nor did it appear in any form in The Bill of Rights, or any constitutional amendment.  The notion of this "right" is based on the idea that it is the "right" thing for us to care for the less fortunate among us.

This is not only a perversion of transforming morally right behavior into a legally defensible right it uses immoral means to support this morality.  In the past, impoverished people, if they were unable to rectify their own situation turned first to family and then to the community through private charities.  

Private Charity Beats Government Programs

Private charities and families rely on morally impelled charity to help the impoverished.  Government uses forced taxation and income redistribution, which are immoral means to try to remedy a moral wrong.

Healthcare is Not a Right

Medicare and Medicaid likewise are state sponsored charity.  Both are aimed at setting right a morally wrong situation where people are unable to afford their health care.  In fact the whole notion currently being promoted around "Medicare for All" is just a logical extension of this usurpation of private charity by the state.  Are you seeing a pattern here?  

Congressman Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist and erstwhile Presidential candidate has proclaimed that from the socialist view private charities should be abolished.  The socialist view is that all "charity" is handled by the state by using tax dollars pulled from the pockets of working people.

When President Johnson declared the "war on poverty" he integrated a whole new raft of government programs to "right" a moral wrong of people living in poverty.  He attacked the problem through taxes and government programs instead of promoting what was already working to reduce the number and percentage of people in poverty - self-reliance, hard work, thrift, and the safety net of the nuclear family.  The results speak for themselves - destruction of the nuclear family among the poor, rising poverty levels, rising crime rates in poor areas, and the list of human misery just keeps mounting with every new wrong that socialists want to make right with the power of government. 

How can you determine if a politician or social movement is promoting good or bad solutions?  

Use the simple question, will the implementation of this result in increased dependence on government or increased emphasis on self-reliance?  

Take note, I ask you to consider not just the hype, but to consider how it will look once it is implemented.  If it is the former, oppose it.  If the latter, support it.  

Here are some practical ways to implement Action #1.

Read and analyze party platforms (national and state) to uncover whether the party philosophy trends toward reliance on government or self-reliance of individuals.  Most parties post their platforms online now so they are relatively easy to find.

Read and analyze proposed and actual legislation and ordinances to uncover whether they tend to increase the intrusion of government into private lives or to protect individual and states’ rights.

Study the effects of existing laws and ordinances to uncover whether they tend to support self-reliance and individual industry or government dependence.  Look at key demographic trends before and after a given piece of legislation was introduced.

For example, if you look at poverty rates in the US, particularly in the Black American community you will see that the rates were falling steadily for many years prior to LBJ's War nn Poverty.  After, the rates leveled out, instead of continuing to decline, and have begun to climb. 

It is telling that a key indicator of poverty is whether or not there are two parents in the home.  Prior to The War on Poverty, the percentage of single mothers in the Black American community was less than 10%, now it is well above 50%.  It seems pretty clear that the economic incentives in this legislation had the effect of encouraging out-of-wedlock marriages and the dissolution of the nuclear family.  

The results have been devastating the the Black American community, locking multiple generations into poverty and enforcing the soft bigotry of low expectations to exacerbate the problem by discouraging academic achievement by children.

Study and analyze both the voting records and pronouncements of candidates and politicians to uncover where their words and deeds align with the protection of individual and states’ rights and encourage self-reliance or government dependency.

Action #2 - Make Your Views Known

Exert your influence to encourage the cause of liberty, self-reliance, charity, and decreased worship of government as the cure for all our ills. Bear in mind, this step is neither passive nor free of costs.  The biggest costs may be the loss of friends and the vitriol of those who disagree with your views.  Whenever you take a stand, there are inevitably those who will oppose you.  These days, that opposition has proven to be particularly nasty and uncivil.

Whether or not others become uncivil is irrelevant. If you want to maintain the moral high ground that comes with supporting our unalienable rights (and their attendant responsibilities) you need to maintain high standards of civility and decorum.  Descending to the level of those who oppose you degrades you and your position, creating a semblance of moral equivalence between the principles you promote and those you oppose.

Use social media appropriately – don’t go negative.

Most of us are far too familiar with how nasty people can be on the internet.  Don't be one of those folks.  When you use social media, keep it positive and uplifting.

Many years ago while I was serving as a missionary, one of my trainers pointed out a very important principle to me.  He taught me that there are two ways to attempt to win people to your view. 

One way is to tear down the view of others while touting the brilliance of your view.  He pointed out that this seldom works because it puts people on the defensive.  They tend to become reactive and are so busy thinking of how to defend or attack that they often quit listening to the positive points you are trying to make.

The alternative is to largely ignore the view of others while simply talking up the good points and benefits of your view.  Many times, this wholly positive approach disarms them a bit and draws them in to look at your view more deeply and begin to ask questions.

To that end, here are a few rules of the road to remember:
  • Make sure your posts and comments encourage support for your views without denigrating others
  • Make complimentary comments, likes, follows, and shares of posts which support your views without denigrating others.
  • Engage in civil discourse instead of uncivil discourse.
Please note, avoiding denigrating other view points does not mean avoiding disagreeing with them.  I am not calling for the total avoidance of conflict.  Rather, I am calling for the use of constructive conflict instead of destructive conflict.  

Constructive conflict is conflict that doesn't leave people damaged in its wake.

Civil discourse means learning how to disagree without being disagreeable. 

  • Use facts as much as possible. Don't blindly repost memes either for or against.  Make the time to do a little research and try to verify facts before sharing them.
  • When you move from fact to belief, state it as a belief.  This clarity bolsters your use of facts and deprives opponents of the opportunity to justifiably call you out for substituting beliefs for facts.
  • Do not use insults or name-calling (ad hominem attacks).  When you resort to hurling insults at your opponents it is because you have lost your ability to use facts and reason and are resorting wholly to emotion to exert influence.  While emotion has its place, all too often it leads people into indefensible and ill-considered positions.
  • Engage with and support political candidates and parties that align with your views.

Consider Running for Public Office

Having run for office I can tell you it is no picnic.  It takes some money, good support, and a lot of hustle.  As nasty as it may sound, running for office is all about marketing, and you are the product.

Perhaps the worst aspect of running for office is the very negative views many people have about politicians.  As soon as you run for office, you are now a politician.  All those unkind things you may have said or heard about lying, dishonest politicians will now be said to you and about you.

Look local first. School Board, City Council, Mayor, County Council, County Clerk, etc.

It sounds trite, but it is true, the higher you go in politics the less you can actually affect.  You can have the most significant impact at the local levels rather than at state and federal levels.

Summary

Two things you can do to make the world a better place today are to stop looking for a governmental solution to societal ills and make your influence felt in a positive way.  These are pretty simple, but not particularly easy steps.  However, you can do them and they will begin to immediately make your tiny corner of the universe a bit better.


See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard

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 2020 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.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God

Friday, September 4, 2020

Socialism = Slavery

Image (c) AFP
                               This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

Socialism makes citizens into slaves.

You don't believe me?  Consider the state of the slave and his family.

Slaves are always fully employed: Slaves don't ever have to worry about unemployment.  Mom and Dad, and even the children, work when they become old enough.  Moms don't have the option of one of them staying at home to raise the kids while the other brings home the bacon.  If they don't all work, the master punishes them.

Slaves are all economically equal: No matter how hard they work, or how much they produce, they get paid the same as the slaves who do nothing every time the master looks away.  They are taxed 100 percent, and then the master gives them what she or he thinks is appropriate to keep them healthy enough to keep working.

Slaves have completely equal opportunity: Slaves don't get to keep the fruits of their labors.  No matter how hard they work, or how smart they are, it won't automatically make their situation better.  Did you know that it is probable that Eli Whitney, the inventor of the cotton gin—an invention that gave the Southern cotton industry real economic legs and is credited with "reinvigorating slavery," actually took credit for an invention made by his slave?  You don't hear that story in American History class—do you?

Slaves have totally free healthcare: The slaves don't have to pay for healthcare.  The master gives them whatever level of healthcare that the master decides is suitable for them, even though the master may have access to a much better level of care than is provided for the slaves.

Slaves have free housing: The slaves don't have to pay for their food and shelter.  They get whatever food and shelter the master decides to give them.

Slaves are safe from crime: The slaves don't get to have access to guns.  That might not bode well for the master, making it hard for him to keep the slaves in line.

Slaves have totally free education: The slaves don't have to pay for education.  They get whatever education the master thinks they need to be effective in the work he assigns them.

Slaves get free clothing: The slaves don't even have to pay for their clothes.  The master sees to it that they have whatever clothing he or she feels is appropriate for the work they do.

Slaves get rewarded for government service: There is opportunity for a better life for slaves.  Slaves that are especially pleasing to the Master can work in the "big house."  There, they get better clothes and food and education, because they are directly serving the master.

Doesn't that list of "government benefits" sound a lot like the liberal agenda for this country?  It does to me.

Star Parker describes herself as "a welfare, crack ho."  The story she tells of her gradual realization that the welfare system has the "unintended consequence" of enslaving its recipients is enlightening.  Now, she is a champion of capitalism and freedom, which causes many people of color to decry her as an "Oreo"—black on the outside, but white on the inside.  That kind of thinking is another tool used by liberals to snatch economic freedom and victory from the hands of the poor and keep them in poverty.

The socialism in this country was championed by the Democratic Party by the likes of Woodrow Wilson and his protégé Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It should not be forgotten that it is the Democratic Party that pushed to keep slavery in place.  It is the Democratic Party that passed the infamous Jim Crow Laws, and it is the Democratic Party that initiated "The War on Poverty" under Lyndon B. Johnson.  It is now and always has been the aim of the Democratic Party to keep people of color under their thumb and their control.

I wish I could say that the Republican Party has staunchly opposed this creeping socialism and reprehensible oppression of people of color.  Unfortunately, the party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass has largely been won over into the camp of socialism too.  Most presidential elections, we are given the choice between a socialist (Democrat) and a lite-socialist (Republican).

Neither choice is very appealing, and neither turns back the tide of socialism and slavery that is rolling in on us.

What is the answer?

Constitutional conservatives need to quit viewing politics as a spectator sport.  They need to overcome their natural revulsion over running for office and get into the ring.  They need to run for offices at all levels—local and state mostly—and take back our country, one city and county at a time.


Food for thought!

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/ 
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard 

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 2020 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.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God
Click on the image below to buy your copy today

Godvernment is available in both paperback and ebook format through Amazon.

Lying Liberal Altruists

Image (c) iqoncept and Depositphotos.com

                              This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

The Lie of Liberal Altruism

In the 25th chapter of Matthew, the Savior speaks of the final judgment.  To those who have done well and to those who have not, He offers the same explanation for the reward they are offered.  He tells them all that, "... inasmuch as ye have done [or not done] it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

He is referring to how they did, or did not, take care of the poor, the sick, the destitute, and the afflicted among them.

Today, much of our political debate and divide appears to be focused on how we, as a society, believe we should go about taking care of the least advantaged among us.

For many years, as I read or heard these words, I believed that Jesus was speaking metaphorically.  I believed He was saying that He was holding us accountable for our treatment of our fellow human beings, and He is certainly saying that.  However, I am now convinced that Jesus was not speaking metaphorically in this matter.  Rather, He was being completely literal.

We learn elsewhere that in His atoning sacrifice, He suffered all the pains of humanity (Doctrine and Covenants 18:11), so that He could learn to succor those in need (Hebrews 2:18).  I suggest that, in a very real way, He has actually shared and felt the very pains of the homeless, the hungry, the naked, those in prison, and those who wash up on the edges of our society like flotsam washing up on a beach, and, that He did not suffer those pains in some abstract way, or as a derivative of what those people suffer—rather, through some incomprehensible mechanism, He is and was able to fully feel the actual pains that each of us has suffered and will suffer.  Having felt those actual pains, He then can understand our situation completely and can comfort us, or forgive us, in exact measure according to our pain and need.

Knowing that He feels the pains of others, when we help those in need, when we relieve the suffering of those in anguish or pain, when we feed the hungry, we directly reduce the amount of suffering and pain that Christ suffers.  Likewise, when we cause others to suffer, we add to the pain that He suffers.  When we fail to act to alleviate the pain and suffering of others, we fail to alleviate His pain and suffering.

I believe that is true.

In light of that belief, some would suppose that I would be driven to embrace the social welfare model of government (aka socialism, communism, progressivism, liberalism, fascism).  In fact, much of the social welfare model of government wraps itself in a mantle of altruism about caring for the less fortunate among us, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Socialists like Bernie Sanders and liberals like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seek to destroy the rich (other than themselves), and even the middle class, and make us all equally poor together.

I despise their cries to destroy the wealthy in order to help the poor, and there is no hypocrisy in my feelings.  You cannot lift anyone up by tearing someone else down.

When Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and their ilk talk about helping the poor and relieving suffering, they are not talking about digging deep into their own pockets and giving until it hurts themselves in order to help others.  They are content to keep their own wealth, gained by feeding at the trough of the taxpayers.  They will keep their wealth, and instead they will dig deep into the pockets of others and force them to give until it hurts.

Their hypocrisy in their failure to live the very principles they are espousing is as clear and horrendous as that of any Christian preacher who rails from the pulpit against the evils of the flesh, and then is caught in adultery and debauchery.  Their altruistic battle cries of "soak the rich" mask the brutal reality of their policies, which actually soak everyone who is above the poverty line in order to make us all poor together and ensure that the only path to wealth and comfort is through service to the state.

We need to re-enshrine the notion of individual action and individual accountability in our nation, especially when it comes to the issues of caring for the poor and disadvantaged.  A thrust toward individual accountability is in direct opposition to the socialist thrust of collective accountability.

Each individual should take personal action to help those who are less advantaged than they.  Each person should do according to their ability and means.  This does not mean that we cannot band together into charitable organizations to magnify our efforts, but we should not ever rely upon the power of taxation, which is nothing less than forcible redistribution of wealth, in order to take care of those who are disadvantaged.

I make a notable exception in this for military veterans.  Military veterans are the only organization which has earned the right to partake of a portion of the public treasury to support them in their times of trouble.  Because they have literally offered their lives in the service of our country, they are actually entitled to support through taxation.



Food for thought!

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/ 
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard 

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 2020 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.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God
Click on the image below to buy your copy today

Godvernment is available in both paperback and ebook format through Amazon.

Embracing Intolerance

Image (c) Lightsource and Depositphotos.com

                              This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

The Hypocrisy of Intolerant Liberals

Once you understand that godless liberals, progressives, socialists, and communists cannot hope to succeed in their aims while the masses worship God more than man, then the hypocrisy of the left begins to make sense.

Their efforts to elevate the “wisdom” of men, in direct conflict with the commandments of God, are first defended with calls for loving, Christian tolerance and understanding from God worshippers, but as soon as any sort of critical mass of acceptance is achieved, the calls for tolerance quickly turn from pleas into accusations of intolerance.  They begin to attack and demonize those who aren't willing to wholeheartedly accept their patently ludicrous stances.

Consider the trajectory of liberal fascism that led to the recent controversy in North Carolina over HB2.

After gaining legal acknowledgement in the courts to support same-sex marriage, the liberal movement shifted its focus to gaining acceptance for transgenders.

The City Council of Charlotte passed an ordinance requiring that private businesses allow people to use women's and men's bathrooms and shower facilities at their own discretion, depending upon whether the individual “feels” like a woman or a man at that moment.

The government overreach in this case is appalling on its face, and the notion that a person with male genitals can stroll into a women's bathroom and shower facilities at will is preposterous.  If a man who wasn't claiming to “feel like a woman” walked into a women's shower facility, undressed, and used the showers, he would rightly be arrested for indecent exposure, at the least.  Perhaps he would be charged with some form of sexual assault, and, if there were minor girls present, he would be charged as a sex offender for exposing himself in that manner.

This city ordinance would have wiped out all those protections against such lewd conduct and given them the protection of law.  It was the local government forcing private businesses to accept this change, regardless of their own views or desires.

North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory and the state legislators convened a special session of the legislature to address this case of government overreach and outrageous abuse of the principle of consent of the governed.  By an overwhelming majority, they passed House Bill 2 (HB 2), which prohibited local governments from requiring private businesses to implement rules requiring them to allow men to use women's bathroom and shower facilities.

This common-sense limitation of unfettered governmental overreach was met with a firestorm of cries of discrimination, intolerance, and accusations of being “haters” from the liberals.

I call this a common-sense measure because it is just that.  Regardless of whether a person “feels” like a man or a woman, their actual gender is manifested by their genitalia and by their chromosomes.  It is not at all a question of mental or emotional orientation.  It is wholly a matter of biology and science.

At this point, some will inevitably throw out the circumstance of true hermaphrodites—those unfortunate individuals that are born with both male and female genitals.  These individuals are more correctly referred to as intersex, rather than hermaphrodites, because they cannot reproduce asexually. 

Statistics on the occurrence of intersex births puts this biological phenomena between one-tenth of one percent to as high as 1.7% of all live births, depending upon the extent of the presence of both gender indicators present in the body.  So at the outside, this is less than 2% of the population.

As for transsexuals, people who are surgically altering their genitals to change their appearance, if their genitals are still what they were born with, then they need to look in their shorts and choose their bathroom according to what they see there, not by what they “feel.”

It does not make sense to allow men and women, boys and girls, to all use the same bathrooms and shower facilities simultaneously, just to accommodate less than 2% of the population and a few folks who haven’t yet completed their surgical transition.

There is no question in my mind that the next counter-intuitive legal foray on the sexual front will be to redefine pedophiles into a sexual identity that will require legal accommodation and the removal of legal sanctions for their behavior.  Coupled with that will be an effort to lower the age of sexual consent from the current standard of 16 years of age down closer to 8.  This will allow pedophiles to claim that their intercourse with a child of either sex was consensual and not subject to the legal sanctions of rape.

While liberals are trying to force social conservatives to first become tolerant of, and then embrace, all sorts of behaviors that are in direct contradiction of the commandments of God, they are working with the other hand to be utterly intolerant of the behaviors of God worshippers.  While fighting for the right of their own to behave as they want, they actively seek to deny the rights of those who disagree to behave as they want.  And, as was proven by the actions of the Charlotte City Council, they are perfectly willing to use the powers of government to force their views and behaviors onto both public and private businesses and individuals.


Food for thought!

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/ 
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard 

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 2020 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.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God
Click on the image below to buy your copy today

Godvernment is available in both paperback and ebook format through Amazon.