Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts

Friday, September 4, 2020

Socialism = Slavery

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

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

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 

Tom Sheppard
9/4/2020

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.

A Crisis of Faith

Image (C) Depositphotos.com                      

                               This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

Many people have lost faith in God and religion.  In the past, many people looked to God, religion, and faith for the solutions to both personal and societal maladies. 

For instance, the answer to eliminating poverty was both through private charitable efforts and an explicit acknowledgement that “the poor are with you always.”

In the United States, that approach was working very well, with the numbers and percentage of the populace living in poverty dropping year after year, right up until the government declared war on poverty, and then the numbers began to steadily climb.

The answer to eliminate war and promote global peace seemed to be to convert everyone else to believe in the same god.

Unfortunately, with the rise of ISIS, we can see that even believing in the same god, and further, accepting one person as a messenger of god, does not eliminate war.  Just last week, ISIS claimed credit for bombing a market in Baghdad, where the objective was to kill and intimidate into submission Muslims who are unwilling to submit to ISIS and their specific view of how the worship of Allah and the teachings of his prophet Mohammed should be implemented.

The Age of Reason likewise attracted people away from putting their faith in a supernatural being (God), and instead encouraged them to put their faith in the collective potential of humankind with its ability to reason, to innovate, to discover, and to build.

In spite of what some may say, this is not the first time in history where humankind has made a concerted effort to remove God from His throne and place humanity there in His stead.


The Tower of Babel is a Lesson in the Folly of Collectivism

You may read it as history, as doctrine, or simply as a cautionary tale, but the story of the Tower of Babel is about this very situation.

According to The Holy Bible, up to this point in history, all human beings spoke the same language, and, most were settled fairly closely together.  They were all under the leadership of one king.

The people looked back at the stories of the destruction of humanity in the Flood of Noah, and they decided that they didn’t like the idea of God being able to wipe them out, so, they came up with a plan to make them independent of God and impervious to His wrath or commandments.

They didn’t like His threat of destruction, and they didn’t agree with how He said that they should be living their lives.

Step 1 of their plan was to make it so that God couldn’t possibly destroy them.  To do that, they set about building a tower that was so big and strong that everyone could live in it and it could withstand any flood or other natural disaster.

Step 2 of their plan was to remove God from His position of authority and put someone in His place that was more to their liking.  So they would build the tower tall enough to reach into the heavens where God dwells and send in the army to depose Him.

All of the people understood the objective and the plan.  There was no miscommunication because they all spoke the same language.  They all played their parts because they were all subject to the same government, which had the power to enforce cooperation from anyone who didn’t want to contribute their ‘fair share” of their time and property to this important, world-saving objective.

What happened next was totally unexpected by them.  God, instead of raising flood waters or sending down fire from Heaven to destroy this tower, this centerpiece of the war against God, just caused a subtle change to come upon them so that all of a sudden, where before there had only been one language, there was now a multitude of languages.  Where before there had been clarity of word, and hence purpose, now there was only the unintelligible babbling of thousands of confused individuals.

People, quite naturally and necessarily, gravitated toward those whose language they could understand.  In very short order, the massive, concerted undertaking was utterly abandoned, as groups of people fled away from other groups whose intentions could no longer be understood through a simple conversation.

Human nature—always suspicious and fearful of those who are different—asserted itself, and the effort to first defy and then overthrow the powers of Heaven was forgotten and abandoned.

The abandoned tower was subsequently destroyed, without the death of thousands, by a combination of earthquake and tornado (whirlwind).

Today, we have many people who ardently disbelieve in God and embrace human ingenuity and human resources as the only reliable source for solving the ills of our day.  To end war, they seek to implement a unified world government.  The foundation stones of this are seen in Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations and its current incarnation, the United Nations.

For these people, God is the cause of war—not a solution.  They seek to first make all religions morally equivalent and then prove them morally inferior to humanism, thus eliminating the divisive issue of the nature of God, humanity’s relationship to God, and which god is real.

The Humanist Recipe for Eliminating Religious Conflict

1.       Make people believe all religions are morally equivalent.

2.       Make people believe religion is morally inferior to humanism.

3.       Make people believe that humanity can, and must, save itself from its own worst nature.

Image (c) Depositphotos.com

Religion Causes War

While it is inarguable that many wars and atrocities have been committed in the name of various religions, these horrors were not perpetrated by God.  Rather, religious wars are typically the result of secular leaders using religion and religious conflict as a means to elevate their own power by uniting their constituents behind into one body, dedicated to protecting home, family, and freedom from the moral and physical predations of this identifiable, external threat in the form of a group that believes in a different god.

Hitler used the Jews to this end.  He leveraged anti-Semitism and elevated it from individual prejudice into a national threat.  After whipping up a significant number of people into fear and loathing of the Jews, he used the fists and clubs of his own adherents, posing as representatives of the majority of people, to assault the Jews and to rob them of property and life.

Having managed to stir up a significant number of Germans to support his view of Jews as a threat, and having cowed the majority of his people into silence on the topic, he used this kernel of unity to set up a variety of laws and policies which aligned the remaining Christian religious organizations as subordinate to the state and supportive of the worship of Hitler and Nazism as the cure for the ills and injustices that beset the German people.

Hitler’s socialist success, compared to the relative failure of Stalin’s international communism, was due in large part to his appeal to nationalistic pride while setting up an enemy that was in their very midst and was easily identified.

Marxism and international communism seek to pit the “us” of the common worker against the “them” of the rich.  Unfortunately, the definition of “rich” is a totally relative measure.  Add to this the fact that capitalism opens a path where common workers can transform into the rich.

In contrast, national socialism, and Hitler in particular, targeted a “them” who were easily identifiable.  The Jews set themselves apart from the world by their unique religious practices and dress.  They can be seen and attacked without the confusing standard of rich or poor.

Increasingly, Christians are being set out as a people apart due to their practices and dress.  This dramatic separation of Christians from humanists will accelerate and will soon be sufficiently distinctive that Christians will be able to be targeted for persecution without the confusing standard of rich or poor.

When government is set up as God—the supreme source of good in our lives—the worship of any other deity becomes heresy and treason, a crime against the people, and a crime against humanity.  As we know, treason and crimes against humanity are the most serious violations of the social compact.  As such, they justify the confiscation of all material goods, incarceration, and even death at the hands of the people.

Image (c) Depositphotos.com

Mobocracy and Lawlessness are Justified

In this kind of world, mob violence, when directed against “them,” will be considered a justified community service.  Those whom the mob fails to root out and lynch, government agents will arrest, try, and hang.  Some, along the way, will be tortured and killed by government agents.  This lawless behavior will be not only tolerated, but encouraged because the end—purging humanity of its “evil” elements—justifies any measures, because the stated end objective is the salvation of humanity and our transformation into better creatures.

Ultimately, Hitler led the German people willingly into the horrors of World War II.  Germany went down the road to war in a religious crusade to establish the Aryan race in its “rightful” place at the head of the human family so that the Aryans could lead humanity forward into purity and nobility.

The infamous “Final Solution”[i] was justifiable to the Nazi leadership because it would eliminate a source of racial impurity and degeneration.  It would remove what they believed was an obstacle inhibiting the creation of a race of supermen and superwomen—Aryans—who would be the culmination of millennia of human progress.

Image (c) Alessio Moiola and Depositphotos.com

Collectivism is the Cure to Poverty

Just as worshippers of government mistakenly believe that collectivism removes the causes of war by removing God, they believe that the answer to large-scale human suffering, such as poverty, is to use the power of compulsion and bring to bear the resources of the whole of humanity to redistribute the wealth of individuals from rich to poor and thus eliminate poverty at a stroke.

This forcible redistribution of wealth is known variously as communism, socialism, progressivism, liberalism and fascism.  It is appropriate to lump all of these political movements under the umbrella of collectivism. 

Collectivism is an appropriate label, because all of these movements seek to abolish all personal property and collect all the resources of humanity into the hands of government for management and administration by government officials.  This administration is avowedly done for the greater good of humanity.  The reality is that a government elite live in luxury while the rest of the world lives in grinding poverty.

The missionaries of Godvernment prefer to ignore the actual effects of this scheme wherever it has been actually put into practice, in places such as the now-defunct USSR and the nations of the Warsaw Pact, as well as more current examples of  The People’s Republic of China, Cambodia, Cuba, or Venezuela.

Capitalists are Criminals

In contrast with utopian qualities of society that these missionaries (such as Senator Bernie Sanders)  preach will result from the implementation of this forcible redistribution of wealth, we see widespread poverty and deprivation, a world of scarcity for most and abundance for a very, very few.  The only avenue to lift yourself or your family from the poverty that the masses are locked into is by climbing the ranks of the governmental ladder to enjoy greater abundance as a reward for the “greater service” you are rendering your fellow citizens in your governmental role.

Well, government service isn’t quite the only avenue to abundance.  The other avenue is to become a black-market capitalist.  Because any kind of capitalism is viewed as selfish, it is categorized as criminal activity, so a life of crime or government servitude are the two choices for anyone not content to live off what the government decides is adequate for you and your family.  If you want abundance in your life in a collectivist world, you either become a criminal or a zealot.

Image (c) Depositphotos.com

Godvernment Creates Divine Humans

What these missionaries of forcible wealth redistribution are hoping to achieve is to reshape humankind into the kind of creature that we ought to be, instead of what we are.

CS Lewis, in his book, The Abolition of Man, referred to this effort to engineer a better man as an attempt to use the resources of humankind to create a superman, or a god. 

And this is the ultimate collision point between God and government.  These social engineers and God both have the goal of reshaping humankind into the kind of creatures we ought to be instead of what we are.

You might think that having a common goal would allow the social engineers and the followers of God to unite and find a common cause.  Unfortunately, the reality is just the opposite.

The social engineers are wise enough to know that alone, and in isolation, they have no hope at all of effecting the changes needed in society to establish an environment that is conducive to shape individuals into better creatures, so they seek to marshal the resources of all of humanity to this end.  To do that, they understand the need eliminate all factions which divide humanity.  They seek to return the world to the same state and mindset as the builders of the Tower of Babel.

One of the single most divisive elements within human society is religion. 

Religion Reveals the Meaning of Life

When you consider that religions are built around the central premise of helping people to understand the meaning of life, inasmuch as those answers diverge, or the ways to achieve the highest in us diverges, the potential for energetic disagreement is inherent.

If you reject the very notion of the existence of a being that is far more intelligent and powerful than humans, or you acknowledge the possibility, but believe this deity is uninterested in our fates, it becomes a logical next step that humanity must rely on its own devices to survive and become better.

Rejecting the existence of help from God, the earnest seeker after a meaningful life, desiring the greater good of all humanity logically concludes that any notion that points the hope of people for betterment away from human institutions is a dangerous, perhaps even fatal, distraction.  In this mindset, it stands to reason that religion and the worship of any and all deities must be eliminated or made irrelevant.

This is, in fact, the conclusion of those who are actively seeking to drive religion from the public square.

Unity is Essential

God, on the other hand, has no compelling need to take these rationalist-social engineers off the board to achieve His ends.  While it is true that they are a fly in the ointment, He knows that one of the fundamental factors in the transformation of any human being from what they are into what they should be is the element of actual choice.

In this, the rationalist, human-intellect-worshipping social engineers actually play a part in His plan.  They provide a clear choice for individuals.

Each individual can choose to worship at the altar of human intellect, which dictates that to change the inner person, you must first change the circumstances (hence the social engineering), or we can choose to worship at the altar of God, who tells us that regardless of our circumstances, we must make morally correct choices.

So, the missionaries for collectivism have a compelling need to shift the faith of human beings from faith in God to faith in humankind.  With God in the picture, the path to change humanity cannot be compelled because the conscience of the God worshipper may rebel against the acts which the humanity worshipper deems necessary for his end goal.

The interesting parallel here is that God has said, “if ye are not one, ye are not mine.”  Likewise, the humanity worshippers are saying, “if you are not one with me, then ye are not mine.”  If they need to somehow get rid of you or silence your dissent so that they can move forward with the appearance of unity, then so be it.

Outward Behavior Flows From Inward Conviction

Here again, the difference in the focus between these government worshippers and God worshippers is startling.  The government worshippers are focused on at least having everyone appear to be unified, regardless of how the citizens of this world order actually feel.  For them, the focus is wholly on the “acceptable” outward conduct.  They believe that if they can change or control the outward behavior, they can change or control the inner thinking.

The world believes that if you change a man’s circumstances, you will change the heart of man.  To this end, they seek to forcibly move wealth from those who have to those who have not.  They hope, in vain, that if they give enough material wealth to the predators among us, that those predators will beat their swords into plowshares and become good citizens, ceasing their life of crime and predation.  They believe that assuaging an actual scarcity will alleviate the imagined scarcity, envy, covetousness, and anger that rules the hearts and minds of “bad” people and convert them into “good” people.

“No change of circumstance can repair a defect of character.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

In contrast with this focus on changing outward circumstances, Christianity teaches that if you change a man’s heart, his inner circumstances, he will change his outward behavior.

“As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he” 

(Proverbs 23:7).  

God knows that the outward behavior flows from the inward conviction.

Godvernmentalists are not ignorant of the reality that winning the heart and mind creates the best sort of convert.  It creates a convert whose actions will never consciously deviate from the party agenda.  They would love to apply mind control to get people to accept their agenda in both their thoughts and their deeds. 

Toward the end of winning hearts and minds, collectivists have worked long and hard to twist the content of our public educational system to support their views of capitalists as selfish, greedy gluttons and God worshippers as ignorant, backward, unenlightened barbarians. 

They started this educational indoctrination in our colleges and universities back in the 1960s.  The campus protests back then were assiduously fomented by a variety of collectivist agents.  The college students of that day are now sitting in our government with their hands on the levers of power.

Hillary and Bill Clinton were totally caught up in the collectivist agitations during their college days.  They bought into the collectivist agenda, but they are not alone, and the collectivists are not confined to any one political party.  Although the Democratic Party is more wholly and overtly won over to the collectivist cause, a significant segment of the Republican Party elite is supportive of the collectivist agenda and approaches.

Those starry-eyed college students, seduced by the promises of equality and brotherhood in the collectivist song book, eventually got their college degrees and moved on to become politicians and professionals of all sorts.  Many moved into education and journalism, seeing that the hope of changing the world is most easily achieved by bending the minds of the rising generations to fit the collectivist mold.

They have almost wholly taken over the mainstream media, the film industry, and our public education system.  They have become the movers and shakers in their spheres, and they consistently exert their influence to convert others to their worship of humankind and faith in the created instead of in the creator. 

This successful proselytizing of the mainstream media—both news and entertainment—accounts for why the media and Hollywood have been perceived as waging war on God and Christians, because Christianity has traditionally been the majority religion of U.S. citizens.

Conclusions

       What does all this mean to someone who believes in God?

In this collision space between God and government, it is easy to demonize those who are seeking to banish God from the public square.  The demonization is usually driven by a failure to understand the motives behind those who are pushing out God. 

Not only is demonization of collectivists an un-Christian act, it is also the easy way out.  Demonization does not require any understanding.  But failure to understand the motivations of collectivists means misjudging where these folks will actually draw the line in their efforts to banish God.  Driving the worship of God from the public square is a milestone in their efforts, but it is nowhere near the end-game.

The end-game of those who are trying to banish God from the public square is to make the worship of God extinct.  They cannot accept less, because anything less means that humankind is not united in its efforts to transform ourselves into the creatures we should be.



 

[i] The origin of the "Final Solution," the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jewish people, remains uncertain.  What is clear is that the genocide of the Jews was the culmination of a decade of Nazi policy, under the rule of Adolf Hitler.  The "Final Solution" was implemented in stages.  After the Nazi party’s rise to power, state-enforced racism resulted in anti-Jewish legislation, boycotts, "Aryanization," and finally the "Night of Broken Glass" pogrom, all of which aimed to remove the Jews from German society.  After the beginning of World War II, anti-Jewish policy evolved into a comprehensive plan to concentrate and eventually annihilate European Jewry.  https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007704


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.



Wednesday, February 6, 2019

Sanders Anti-Socialism and Stock Buy Backs Regulation

PHOTO: Associated Press

Tom Sheppard
2/16/2019

Bernie Sanders, the perpetual Socialist and Chuck Schumer, the opportunistic Socialist recently published an editorial in The New York Times advocating a new regulatory scheme to oversee company stock buy backs.  They pretend that they see buy backs as some nefarious scheme by corporate boards to rip off the working man and woman.  The reality is that the effects of excessive regulation of publicly owned corporations has a very anti-socialist impact.  The Wall Street Journal report that "the number of publicly listed companies has dropped by half in 20 years."

Driving companies away from being publicly traded and into private ownership is the most anti-Socialist acts Sanders and Schumer can commit.  

No less a capitalist than management guru Peter Drucker pointed out in his book Post Capitalist Society pointed out that the massive levels of retirement fund investments in publicly traded corporations means that the US is where the workers really do own the means of production, which is what Karl Marx defined as the primary purpose of Communism, and by association its less international little brother Socialism.

So, while Democrats, Socialists and RINOs all push harder for government regulation of publicly traded companies what they are really doing is pushing companies to go private, which will take their dividends and rising stock values out of the hands of the pensions of ordinary working folks and place them firmly into the hands of multi-millionaires (like Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer).

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 2019 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:


http://amzn.to/2vERMnU
Get your own copy of Tom's blockbuster Godvernment today.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Pathway to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants

Out POTUS-wannabes are making a lot of press about illegal immigration and a pathway to citizenship for illegals.  Most seem to want to give the illegals a pass on their law-breaking, calling it amnesty.  And they believe this is a first step toward citizenship.  In one regard, they are right, for someone to become a citizen, they must first find themselves here legally.

What all this amnesty chatter ignores is that there is a viable pathway to US Citizenship for illegal immigrants.  The "amnesty" crowd seems to ignore this existing pathway in favor of their disregard for the rule of law, in favor of the "we must be kind at all costs" soft-headed thinking.

The path is simple, but not easy.  I have outlined the steps below:

1) Return to the country of your origin.
2) While in the country of your origin, apply for a visa to the US
3) After entering the country legally, and while the visa is still in effect, apply for US Citizenship.
4) Follow the directions of the US to obtain legal citizenship
5) Obey the laws of the US and the state(s) where you live while in the US

It really isn't as complicated as all the politicians make it out to be.  However, I will admit it isn't easy.

In addition to requiring all aliens to enter the US legally, I believe there are several reforms that should be made to current US immigration laws.  Before I offer my reforms, it is useful for people to understand how we went from "send me your poor, your huddled masses" on the Statue of Liberty to the state now where a company has to prove (under the H1B visa program) that there are no qualified US applicants for a job before they can hire someone with an H1B Visa.

According to Wikipedia (not the most reliable source, but a very convenient one), naturalization (the process of becoming a citizen) was written into the Constitution.  This means it was considered a fundamental enough issue that they didn't even wait to put it into The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution).
"The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."
Even though they made mention of naturalization within the actual Constitution, they did not define how it would be done.  Rather, they left that to be written up as (easily changeable) laws to be enacted (and altered) by Congress.  I am guessing, they recognized that naturalization laws might need to be more reactive to the needs of the country than is allowed by making amendments to the Constitution.
Wikipedia goes on to explain the general structure of the laws that followed.
"Pursuant to this power, Congress in 1790 passed the first naturalization law for the United States, the Naturalization Act of 1790. The law enabled those who had resided in the country for two years and had kept their current state of residence for a year to apply for citizenship. However it restricted naturalization to "free white persons" of "good moral character"."
We can see in the limitation to "free white persons" that the slavery issue was very much on the minds of our Congress in 1790 and that immigration law was used from the start to maintain certain elements of the current situation that were deemed important at the time.  Giving non-whites citizenship could tip things at the ballot box.  Anything that affected the functioning of slavery had both economic and racial impacts.  
Five years later, they made more changes.  And again three years after that.  Both times they made it harder for people to become citizens by increasing the period of probation.  Presumably, this was to prevent criminals from coming here and then becoming citizens.
"The Naturalization Act of 1795 increased the residency requirement to five years residence and added a requirement to give a three years notice of intention to apply for citizenship, and the Naturalization Act of 1798 further increased the residency requirement to 14 years and required five years notice of intent to apply for citizenship."
"The Naturalization Law of 1802 repealed the Naturalization Act of 1798.
"The act of 1802 was the last major piece of naturalization legislation during the 19th century. A number of minor revisions were introduced, but these merely altered or clarified details of evidence and certification without changing the basic nature of the admission procedure. The most important of these revisions occurred in 1855, when citizenship was automatically granted to alien wives of U.S. citizens (10 Stat. 604), and in 1870, when the naturalization process was opened to persons of African descent (16 Stat. 254)."
Once the Civil War was ended we see that the laws were amended to align with the principles underlying the Emancipation Proclamation. 
"The Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868, protects children born in the United States. The phrase: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" was interpreted by the Supreme Court in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark as covering everyone born in the U.S. regardless of the parents' citizenship, with the exception of the children of diplomats. See the articles jus soli (birthplace) and jus sanguinis (bloodline) for further discussion.
"In 1870, the law was broadened to allow African Americans to be naturalized. Asian immigrants were excluded from naturalization but not from living in the United States. There were also significant restrictions on some Asians at the state level; in California, for example, non-citizen Asians were not allowed to own land."
Again, we see that immigration law was used to maintain the status quo and "protect" the established against the encroachments of the newcomers.  Wikipedia goes on...
"After the immigration of 123,000 Chinese in the 1870s, who joined the 105,000 who had immigrated between 1850 and 1870, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 which targeted a single ethnic group by specifically limiting further Chinese immigration. Chinese had immigrated to the Western United States as a result of unsettled conditions in China, the availability of jobs working on railroads, and the Gold Rush that was going on at that time in California. The xenophobic "Yellow Peril" expression became popular to justify racism against Asians.
"The act excluded Chinese laborers from immigrating to the United States for ten years and was the first immigration law passed by Congress. Laborers in the United States and laborers with work visas received a certificate of residency and were allowed to travel in and out of the United States. Amendments made in 1884 tightened the provisions that allowed previous immigrants to leave and return, and clarified that the law applied to ethnic Chinese regardless of their country of origin. The act was renewed in 1892 by the Geary Act for another ten years, and in 1902 with no terminal date. It was repealed in 1943, although large scale Chinese immigration did not occur until 1965."
It is interesting to note that the law was used to allow for the inflow of cheap labor, without granting them the benefits of citizenship.  I am going to make a guess here and suggest that the repeal  in 1943 had a lot to do with China being our ally against Japan in World War II.  So, the repeal was probably a political issue, rather than a labor and economic issue.
What Wikipedia skips over in this article is the implementation in 1921 of immigration quotas.  After World War I a lot of Southern European and Eastern European people came to the US to escape the recession that hit Europe.  The immigration quotas established in 1924 were designed to specifically limit, but not totally prohibit, immigration from these areas of Europe.  Jews too were singled out for discrimination.  However, Arabs and Asians were totally prohibited, because the Act disallowed migration of anyone not elegible to become a citizen.
The 1924 Act also gave the State Department its first role in immigration, establishing the Consular Visa system we use today.    
Apparently, the motives were politcal, ethnic and economic.  In addition to trying to limit cheap labor and competition for jobs, there was a lot of fear that these immigrants might support communist ("Bolshevik") movements in the US and foment a revolution such as happened in Russia.  The ethnic element was expressly acknowledged in a State Department communication which mentioned preserving the homogenity of the American character. 
I could go on, but I think this information provides enough data points to establish the fact that immigration policies in the US have always been about race, economics and politics.  That is as true today as it was in 1870.
Rather than engaging in a fruitless argument about how the motives should be changed (an attempt to change human nature), instead, let's look at how those underlying factors are going to play out in the next few years and adjust our immigration policy proactively to manage those issues.
Labor - Regardless of complaints to the contrary, most immigrants don't take jobs from citizens.  The citizens aren't applying for jobs that immigrants take.  They prefer to sit at home and collect welfare instead of cleaning houses and tending yards for rich people or cleaning offices, and trimming bushes for businesses.  Too many of our natural born citizens today think that hard work and low pay are somehow beneath their dignity.  They remind me of the idle rich and nobility of Europe, only without the money or the fancy titles.  
Realistically speaking our birth rate is declining along with that of every other industrialized nation in the world.  Our labor pool is not large enough to support the boomers who are retiring.  Expanding the labor pool is the easiest "fix" for Social Security.  Just like any other Ponzi Scheme if you get more contributors to Social Security you can keep paying benefits to the early entrants into the scam.
Economics - I already mentioned the benefits to Social Security from increasing our labor pool with legal immigrants.  Added to that is the fact that a great many immigrants to this country start small businesses.  Often, they open them to serve their own ethnic community initially, but they also expand into the community at large.  Small businesses are the largest employer in our country and provide the greatest amount of economic fuel than all the big businesses together.  
Did you know that immigrants are four times more likely to become millionaires than natural born citizens of this country?  And they do it by starting small businesses.
Race - I believe the argument for "racial purity" was lost a long time ago in the US (even before the Civil War) and it is both a lousy and immoral argument.  In my opinion there is no place in the teachings of Christ for racism.  While it is true that Christ limited his ministry to the Jews, there were covenant reasons for that.  And, after his resurrection, he commanded his Apostles to "go into all the world," thus lifting any further prohibition against allowing non-jews to enter the waters of baptism.
In this country, when Texas was liberated from Mexico and later when the Southwest was taken from Mexico, we effectively made all those hispanics in those areas into US citizens.  From that point on, we were no longer truly an "anglo-saxon" nation.  A significant portion of the US population is hispanic by descent and were never immigrants.  The whole community character of the Southwest US and California is heavily influenced by the hispanic culture that is native to that area.
Immigration, legal and illegal, has strengthened that sub-cultural identity and will continue to do so.  We can either follow the path of brutal Balkan nations and opt for ethnic cleansing and mass murder, or embrace our American ideals and assimilate this segment fully into our national tapestry and "Americanize" it.
Economic and political conditions in Mexico as well as the rest of Central and South America will not change for the better any time soon.  The corruption and drug cartel wars will continue to make life for ordinary working-class folks perilous for the forseeable future, until the rule of law can truly be established there.  Given that threat to life and liberty, many will continue to seek the greener grasses on the north of the Mexican-US border.
As our labor pools shrink due to declining birth rates, in a near decade the US will be competing to bring cheap labor to the US.  We should take appropriate advantage now of the cheap labor just over our border and instead of sending factories down there, take steps to legally allow workers to come here.
The labor unions won't like that solution.  The racial elitists won't like that solution either.  But, the reality is that we need what they have (labor), and they need what we have (stability and prosperity).
Now, to my proposed immigration law changes:
1) Eliminate the quotas for all countries that are not totalitarian, communist, sponsors of terrorism, etc. - the political stability (not to be confused with electoral stability) of our system is a legitimate reason for immigration restriction.  All other quotas are inherently racist and should be eliminated.
2) Create a biometric database (fingerprints, DNA, etc.) available to all US law enforcement agencies and require all entrants to the US to be registered in this database (even "visitors").  Their information remains in the database until they become citizens. 
3) Routinely grant work visas to all applicants unless they are on a watch list or from a restricted national origin (see #1 above).
4) Any "visitor" or immigrant who is convicted of a felony is immediately inelegible for citizenship and is deported.  Once deported for a felony, they are never again elegible for re-entry to the US under any status.
5) Any visitor or immigrant who is found here without an authorized visa is guilty of a felony (see #4 above).
6) Require applicants for citizenship to attain English competency in reading and writing and speaking and to live here for at least 5 years with no felonies (pending indictments or convictions)  and demonstrate that they have been gainfully employed for the majority of that time before they are elegible for citizenship.
7) No publicly funded welfare benefits of any kind (including college tuition subsidies) are availalble to non-citizens.
8) All working immigrants must pay all the same taxes as citizens, but they get no benefits from those taxes.  Not even unemployment.  In other words, if you aren't a citizen, you don't get any government benefits and none accrue until you actually become a citizen.
9) Declare English as the official language of the United States of America.  Some may feel this is racist, but it is actually just a practical step.  Establishing an official language for the nation will avoid future contention over the language of contracts and official documents.  It also enforces a defacto standard language for use in business and schools in order to function effectively.  This does not in any way forbid ESL efforts or foreign language classes, but it does eliminate any right to having public school courses taught in a language other than English.
So, what do you think about my immigration reform and my pathway to citizenshp?
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. 

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

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 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.