Embracing Intolerance

Image (c) Lightsource and Depositphotos.com

                              This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

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 GodClick on the image below to buy your copy today

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

You Have Done It Unto Me: 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 (D&C 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 and will suffered.  And, feeling those actual pains, he then can understand completely our situation and can comfort us, or forgive us, in exact measure according to our pain and need.

Knowing then, 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 pain He suffers.  And 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 the 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 Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama, seek to destroy the rich (other than themselves) and even to destroy 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, Hilary Clinton, Barak 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.  And 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.

Links Related to this Post:

• Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning
• Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It
• Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto

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 and invited. 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, even ones that may unsettle me.

The Legislative Branch of Government is DEAD, And State Governments Too

Four Things You Can Do to Magnify the Power of One to Preserve Your Freedom

Saturday, I published an article that raised a warning about the devastating effects recent legislation will have on our Constitutional Rights.  This article continues that warning and provides both the wording from the legislation that is the root of this problem and shows how it conflicts with the Constitution.  As well as how it sets us up to lose our Constitutional Rights. And I provide specific things you can do as an individual to try to thwart this oppressive power play.

I hereby call on all our elected officials at State and Federal levels and all citizens of this country to immediately take legal action to enjoin against the enforcement of as well as repeal and annul The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 - and this call has nothing to do with Iran and everything to do with the destruction of our Constitutional Rights.

The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 threatens to totally destroy our Constitutional Rights and protections and indeed, our very Republic.

This is not about Iran.  It is about Congress passing an Act that establishes a precedent which will destroy the very fabric of checks and balances which protects the freedom of individuals of the minority and the majority, regardless of their party affiliation or politics.  

This will destroy the rights of Conservatives, Liberals, Progressives, LGBT, straight, gay, transgender, Christians, atheists, Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, independents, Greens, Communists, Tea Party, 99%ers, anti-gunners, NRA, … in short ALL AMERICANS will lose their freedom if this one Act is allowed to stand.

While aimed specifically at Iran and the treaty that President Obama has signed with them, that is irrelevant because it establishes a precedent.  And under the English Common Law system which prevails in this country, a precedent is extremely important.

The bill was written with good intentions.  It appears to be aimed at blunting some of the most offensive and dangerous parts of the treaty with Iran.  Unfortunately, it allows the President of the United States (POTUS) to implement this treaty without requiring that the Senate first ratify the treaty, as required by the US Constitution.

"The President may not waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran or refrain from applying sanctions pursuant to an agreement for:

12 days after the date of passage of a congressional joint resolution of disapproval, and

10 days after the date of a presidential veto of a congressional joint resolution of disapproval.

Specified deferrals, waivers, or other suspensions of statutory sanctions are excepted from such prohibitions."

Senate Bill 615: Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, Emphasis Added

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/615

Unfortunately, that last line gives away the farm.  It means that POTUS can make a million specific suspension of sanctions, individually, and they take effect regardless of what Congress says.  He just has to do it individually instead of making a blanket ending of sanctions.  So, even the good intentions of the Act are destroyed by the wording of the Act.

Remember, the word “agreement” here is being used in place of the word “treaty.”  That is because if they had used the word treaty, it would have caught everyone’s attention and folks would have clued into what exactly was happening here.

And what is happening here?

Three things are happening here, and the second is far, far worse than the first, and the third may be even worse than the first two.

ONE Really Bad Thing Happening Here

“[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; …”

US Constitution, Article II Section 2, emphasis added

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

1)  This act overturns how the US Constitution requires the handling of treaties. 

Under the Constitution, the President has sole power to enter into treaties for the United States.  Individual States cannot enter into treaties, and Congress cannot enter into treaties. 

However, no treaty entered into by the President is valid and binding until it is ratified by the Senate.  And then, it becomes the law of the land, even overriding the Constitution.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Article VI, US Constitution, emphasis added

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

This required ratification is a significant check on the power of the President.  It prevents him from entering into treaties such as the one proposed last year in the UN, and endorsed by then Secretary of State (and current Presidential hopeful) Hilary Clinton,  that would have required all of us to turn in our handguns under an international standard designed to disarm individuals all over the world which would have had the effect of leaving firearms only in the hands of outlaws and governments.

Or if the President should sign a treaty allowing the practice of Sharia Law inside the US, it would make it lawful inside the US for Islamic Councils to order the death of people who decide to leave Islam because they convert to another religion, such as Christianity.  And it would allow them to burn homosexuals alive, as ISIS has been doing under Sharia Law in the Middle East.

As you can see, treaties can be very powerful and dangerous things.  That is why the Founding Fathers established this significant check on the power of the President in making treaties. 

What is more, is because the Constitution requires the Congress ratifies a treaty before it can take effect, it means that if Congress simply ignores a treaty and does not vote on it, then it never takes effect.  And there is nothing the POTUS can do about that.

And, if the Congress brings a treaty up for a vote and the Senate votes against it by a simple majority, POTUS cannot override that vote and here is where we begin to enter the second, and worst area of precedent and problem created by this Act.

TWO - Really, Really Bad Things Happening Here

2) Under the Constitution, the POTUS cannot enact legislation.  He cannot write a bill and submit it to Congress.  All legislation must originate in Congress.  And, under the Constitution, once Congress has enacted a bill, it does not become law until the POTUS signs it, or if he ignores it for a time, then it becomes law automatically.

However, if the POTUS really doesn’t want a bill to become law, all he has to do is veto it.  When he vetoes it, it goes back to Congress and it is not a law.  If Congress feels really strongly that this should be a law, they vote on it again.  And, if they get a 2/3rds majority in favor of the bill, then the bill will become law, because the Presidential Veto cannot override the force of a 2/3rds majority vote.

In allowing the POTUS to enter into a treaty (agreement) and allowing it to take effect unless Congress votes against it, the POTUS can now craft laws (agreements) and they will take effect unless 2/3rds of the Congress votes against the law.

Effectively, this Act eliminates the Legislative Branch of the Government at a stroke.  Oh sure, they can keep passing laws and doing their thing.  But if the President wants something different than Congress, all he has to do is have the State Department create a treaty with some other country and then POTUS signs it and it automatically becomes the law of the land unless Congress can muster a 2/3rds majority to create a veto-proof rejection of the President’s latest law.  And POTUS can always find at least one foreign head of state out there who will agree to sign a treaty that destroys the Constitutional Rights of Americans.  I can think of a half-dozen right off the top of my head, with Iran being right there with them.

THREE - As if ONE and TWO Weren't Bad Enough

3) In addition to eliminating the Legislative Branch of our Federal Government, this Act will have the effect of overriding all the State Governments of each of our individual states.  They will become puppets at best, or utterly irrelevant at worst.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Article VI, US Constitution, emphasis added

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

There is very little we can do about this, but there is something we can do.  If you are as alarmed about this destruction of our Constitutional protections as I am there are four things you can do, each of which will magnify the voice of The One (you) and turn it into many.  The Power of One is more than you realize.

"I am only one; but still I am one. I cannot do everything; but still I can do

 something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the

 something that I can do."

Edward Everett Hale

1) Share this information with everyone you can.

• Send emails about it to everyone in your email Address Book.
• Post about it on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and all other social media accounts that you have.
• Tell anyone who will listen to you (one-on-one or in groups)

2) Contact each member of the Congressional delegation from your state that is currently serving in Congress.  This site http://www.contactingthecongress.org/ seemed to have the quickest and easiest access to contact information for all 50 states.  Urge them to repeal this Act immediately and to immediately take an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court so that this Act can be declared unconstitutional - which it is.

     A.    Write them letters.

     B.     Send them emails.

     C.     Send them faxes.

     D.    Phone their offices.

     E.     Do all of the above if you want them to realize how important this really is.

3) Contact the office of your state Governor and let him or her know what is going on and that the sovereignty of the state is about to be permanently and completely overridden and destroyed by one thoughtless Act of Congress.  Urge him or her to immediately order the State Attorney General to file suit in Federal District Court asking to have this Act declared unconstitutional.

     A.    Write them letters.

     B.     Send them emails.

     C.     Send them faxes.

     D.    Phone their offices.

     E.     Do all of the above if you want them to realize how important this really is.

4) Contact all your in-state legislators and let them know that their authority is being wiped out by a single act of the Federal Government.  Urge them to immediately pass resolutions condemning this usurpation of states’ rights and urging their governor to immediately file suit against the US Government in this matter.
     A.    Write them letters.

     B.     Send them emails.

     C.     Send them faxes.

     D.    Phone their offices.

     E.     Do all of the above if you want them to realize how important this really is.

I am sure that if you have read any of my previous articles in this blog, you know that there are many points of disagreement I have with different groups in our country today.  And this issue transcends all those disagreements we may have between us.  Because, if this Act stands, then we will all be oppressed together and our government will truly become the “jack-booted” regime that radicals have called it for many years.  And that boot will land firmly on the neck of everyone who doesn’t agree with what our POTUS wants to 

Related Link to this Article:

• Senate Bill 615: Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/615
• US Constitution, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
• Contact each member of the Congressional delegation from your state that is currently serving in Congress. http://www.contactingthecongress.org/ 
• Edward Everett Hale - the source of the quote, "I am one..."
• The Citizen's Constitution: An Annotated Guide by Seth Lipsky

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.

Congress Sells Us Out to Iran, UN and Others

Congress Just Gave Up Our Constitutional Rights to the World

I don't know why we are just hearing about this now, but back in May of this year, our Congress passed a law which will kick the door wide open for the total destruction of ALL our Constitutional

Rights!  I am not an alarmist, or a ranting radio personality like Rush Limbaugh and this one has got me totally freaked out, because I understand the full implications.

Below you will find the text of a letter from Congressman Richard Hudson, written to a friend of mine.  He explains why he is opposed to the Iran deal Obama just negotiated.  But all of his arguments against it are overshadowed by one line in the letter.  I will quote it here.

I voted against the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act which was signed into law in May –it did nothing but abdicate the Senate’s constitutional right to review treaties by requiring the Senate to get two-thirds to disapprove instead of the constitutional two- thirds to approve. Under this law, Congress is technically able to review and vote to approve or strike down the agreement, but the President has promised to veto Congress’ disapproval, which virtually makes any Congressional decision moot.

Just in case you aren’t clear on why this is a big deal, let me explain this to you.  Under the Constitution, when a treaty is ratified by the Senate, it becomes the law of the land - even if it wipes out our Constitutional guarantees under the Bill of Rights.  So, now the President has the power to sign a treaty and it becomes the law of the land.  This opens the door for us to be ruled by every hair-brained treaty the American-Hating members of the UN manage to concoct and convince the President to sign.

Even if I totally trusted the President of the US (POTUS) to be looking out for our well-being and protecting our freedoms - and I don’t trust this current President at all - I would still be opposed to this.

The Constitution specifically states that the Senate has to approve treaties signed by the POTUS or they are not binding.  This law turns that approval process on its head and requires the Senate to disapprove the treaty and this gives the President the ability to override the disapproval.

In the past, if the Senate didn’t like a treaty, they could either just ignore it, or vote against it.  In either of those cases, it never comes to the desk of the POTUS and he cannot act on it, one way or another.

The folks in the UN are not our friends.  They have repeatedly trotted out treaties that would have ripped away our freedoms, and folks like Hilary Clinton have signed on.  Fortunately, the Senate just ignored all that garbage, and we were kept safe.
That is totally not the case anymore!

Each of us needs to write to our elected representatives and urge them in the strongest possible ways to repeal the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.  If we don’t me might as well kiss our Constitutional Protections away.

I encourage you to share links to this article, or copy it and paste it, but do everything you can to get this seen by as many Americans as possible.

And by the way, so that even any Liberals, LGBTQ, the same-sex marriage crowd and anyone who advocates human rights based on natural laws who read this are clear, this means that the Ayatollahs may be able to come and cut off your heads, or burn you in the public square, if they can get the POTUS to sign a treaty that says we accept Sharia Law.

Liberals and Conservatives alike should unite to repeal this unconstitutional law right now!
Here is the text of the letter in its entirety, except that I removed my friend’s name for privacy.

Dear XXXXXXXXX: 

Thank you for contacting me regarding the final Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) that President Barack Obama has proposed for Iran’s nuclear program. I agree a nuclear capable Iran is a grave threat to our national security and I believe that President Obama has made a historic mistake pursuing this deal. 

The United States owes it to our allies and our citizens to promote peace and stability, especially in a turbulent region like the Middle East. Unfortunately, the President is formally blessing the illegal nuclear weapons program of the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism by signing the JCPA. 

Unfortunately, the administration is gambling the security of the entire world on this deal and I fear Congress is almost powerless to stop it. That’s why I voted against the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act which was signed into law in May –it did nothing but abdicate the Senate’s constitutional right to review treaties by requiring the Senate to get two-thirds to disapprove instead of the constitutional two-thirds to approve. Under this law, Congress is technically able to review and vote to approve or strike down the agreement, but the President has promised to veto Congress’ disapproval, which virtually makes any Congressional decision moot. 

The JCPA lifts economic sanctions almost immediately and these crippling sanctions are what brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. Contrary to the narrative the administration portrayed during negotiations that Iran would receive economic relief in phases, the JCPA provides sanction relief on implementation day. The JCPA also introduces provisions that will lift weapons embargos on Iran. This means that Iran will be free to sponsor Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and any other terrorist group they desire while bolstering their military at home with over $100 billion in cash from the lifted sanctions. Giving Iran billions in cash while lifting weapons embargos against them is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous. 

The most alarming provision of this deal is Iran will continue operating thousands of centrifuges to enrich uranium. Additionally, much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will be left in place including the underground facility at Fordow, which will remain open for “peaceful research.” By signing this agreement, President Obama is granting Iran the right to be a nuclear power, threatening the security of the entire world. 

I have long been a skeptic of negotiating with such an anti-American and untrustworthy regime. Despite engaging in “good-faith negotiations,” Iran continues to aggressively drive its regional influence and fill the vacuum of power in the Middle East, threatening regional and global stability. I agree that diplomacy is the preferred method to deal with Iran, but we must pursue a treaty that permanently ensures Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons, not one that merely delays their development for a few years. 

As your Representative, I will continue to be a strong voice for our national security interests and in opposition of this deal that paves the way for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons capabilities. 

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views. Your opinions are important, so please continue to write, call, or email me with any concerns you may have in the future. For more information on issues impacting North Carolinians, please visit our website at: http://hudson.house.gov and sign up for our weekly newsletter. 

Sincerely,
Richard Hudson Member of Congress

Related Link to this Article:

• The Citizen's Constitution: An Annotated Guide by Seth Lipsky

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.

Rightful Role of Government Part 2

This is Part 2 of a two-part article on what I believe is the rightful role of government.

I wrote this in response to a couple of different groups that have been agitating for the scrapping of the US Constitution.

Before you go throwing the Constitution under the bus because of how it is being subverted today by an immoral people in favor of an anarchist view that has NEVER operated successfully, you should consider that our foundation is built on the notion that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  To me, that sounds a lot like the rallying cry of Libertarians and anarchists.  So what are they fighting against except the notion "that  to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

Libertarians and anarchists seem to want to throw out the baby along with the bath water.  The bath water is dirty (our government has become corrupted) so get rid of the baby since it made the water dirty (abolish the Constitution because it frame the government which others have corrupted).  This is a foolhardy approach to solving the problem, and one which, if followed will result in much less individual freedom, not more.

For more than 100 years, the US Constitution stood as a bulwark, generally doing a good job of protecting the majority of people from the predations of a minority (the minority being those who want to exercise unrestricted power over others - call them "king-men" (and women) if you will).
And protecting the minorities (minorities of race, religion or creed) from the predations of a majority.  There are notable big exceptions such as slavery and when the US Government declared war on the Mormons before the Civil War.  And there are notable smaller exceptions such as when local governments were corrupted and turned a blind eye to the operations of groups like the KKK who operated according to their own views of right and wrong (lawful and unlawful).

The Rule of Law has ushered in an unprecedented era in world history.  Today, the rule of law is being supplanted by the rule of regulatory fiat (monarchy or Executive Orders) posing as the rule of law.  Regulatory fiat (monarchy) allowed both the creation of the Ma Bell Monopoly and its later dissolution.  Regulatory fiat allowed the creation and later dissolution of the railroad monopolies.  Regulatory fiat (monarchy) has allowed the creation of the postal service monopoly and allowed the partial dissolution of that monopoly into its present pathetic state.  In this country the supplanting of the Rule of Law began when the ideas of Marx and Engels were embraced by powerful and weak Americans who wanted power and embraced the notion that the State should embody the will of the people instead of serving as a bulwark against the usurpation of their individual freedoms.  Inasmuch as people adopt the view that the state is to embody the will of the people, rather than serving the people to protect their individual freedoms, then they are embracing the notion that the state and the strengthening of the government of the state is the starting point for the solution to all of society's ills. 

The obverse view, that the state exists solely to preserve individual freedom, puts the burden for righting societal injustices or inequities on the shoulders of each individual and requires them to act on their own or to persuade others to join their cause with their time, energy and money given freely to act to improve the lot of the poor or other downcast or disadvantaged peoples. 

Too many people would rather abdicate their individual responsibility, along with their individual freedom, to government, thereby giving the government the ability to coerce folks who are not like-minded to support the "noble" causes adopted by the masses (or presented by demagogues to attract the attention and pity, or concupiscence of the masses).

I believe that government has no business getting into the business of charity.  And the federal government and Supreme Court have no business trying to legislate or adjudicate moral issues.

When government gets into the business of charity - providing economic help to disadvantage sectors of society, several bad things happen:

1. Government robs individuals of the responsibility to account to God for their treatment of the poor and needy by making the individual contributions both compulsory and utterly without connection to the individual contributor.
2. Government sets up programs which always have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of people in disadvantaged group.
3. Government always put most of the money (consistently around 80%) devoted to the issue into the hands of facilitators and government employees and a fraction (consistently around 20%) into form of actual benefits delivered to the needy.

When the Federal Government and the Supreme Court get into the business of legislating or adjudicating moral issues, several bad things invariably happen:

1. The democratic process is short circuited.  Instead of allowing for lively public debate to be held in each state and locality and allow local people to decide with their votes or vote with their feet by moving to localities that favor their views, a decision is forced upon major sectors of the society which is in direct conflict with their moral views.  This does not settle the matter, rather it drives lasting wedges between different segments of society.
2. When the Federal Government or Supreme Court try to settle a moral issue with laws or rulings, they ride roughshod over the right of every citizen to the free exercise of conscience.  They make it illegal to be on the "wrong/losing" side of a moral decision. 
3. This trampling of rights of conscience can only lead to what is, by definition, subversive behavior as people will violate the law, seek to thwart the enforcement of the law, or even violently oppose the government that is seeking to impose the law which they find morally reprehensible.

The decision of the Supreme Court to create a right to abortion, the decision of the Supreme Court to create a right to gay-marriage are high profile examples of situations where the imposition of a decision, instead of settling the matter, has provided a club for one group to attempt to rob the opposition of their rights to dissent on grounds of freedom of conscience.

What is needed today is not an abandonment of the US Constitution.  Rather what is needed is individual and mass commitment to adherence to the principles of individual responsibility and individual rights.  Along with acknowledgement that the exercise of individual rights requires the acceptance of the consequences of those exercises, including failure, unhappiness, ill-health, poverty, incarceration, disability, or even death.

The Constitution was designed to give us the opportunity to succeed and the opportunity to fail.  And, as every successful person knows, failure is always a necessary precursor to success.  What those who seek to cast aside the principles of our Constitution want is a framework that prohibits success and protects us from failure and from the negative consequences of our own choices.  That kind of institutionalized irresponsibility is what is largely wrong with our society today.

I believe that 90% of our current statutes and at least 50% of our Federal and State government infrastructures would evaporate if every regulation and every law passed or currently existing were forced to show 1) origination in the rights enumerated in the US Constitution and 2) adherence to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

The problem is not the baby in the bath, the problem is the bathwater getting dirtier every minute  because mom and dad are using dirt for soap.  The problem is being compounded by the fact that some are deliberately throwing dirt on the baby because they want the baby to be thrown out so they can install their own child and rule the roost.

The solution is to find and elect individuals who are willing to adhere to and support a return to the foundational principles of individual responsibility AND individual freedom, protected by limited government restrained within the boundaries of enumerated powers consciously, deliberately and thoughtfully yielded by the people and preserved by the individual rather than collective energies of the people.

It took 100 years of misguided statism to get where we are today.  It will take many years, decades or perhaps even a century of unremitting, unceasing, individual vigilance and individual effort to regain the individual freedoms and responsibilities which have been usurped by those who I called statists (variously known as progressives, liberals, communists, socialists, marxist, maoists, etc.).

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.

Rightful Role of Government - Part 1

This is Part 1 of a two-part article on what I believe is the rightful role of government.

I wrote this in response to a couple of different groups that have been agitating for the scrapping of the US Constitution.

One of those groups, the Libertarians and Anarchists want to scrap it because they believe that any government other than self-government is too much government.  Based on FaceBook (FB) posts adherents to these views have made, they view the Constitution simply as a vehicle to usurp their personal sovereignty. They also tend to embrace the decadent cultural stance that all forms of external government are equally wrong from a moral standpoint.  This stance utterly ignores the reality that under various forms of despotism like Socialism and dictatorships, their very ability to voice such opinions would likely be ended with a bullet to the head.  Which stands in sharp contrast to how the US Constitution protects their rights to free speech.

The other group that wants to scrap the US Constitution are the Progressives / Socialists / Communists / Liberals.  This second group wants to scrap it because it expressly thwarts their efforts to eliminate personal property rights, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.  They use a variety of arguments against the Constitution and they have successfully implemented a vast array of laws, regulations and court rulings that fly in the face of the express authorities granted and reserved by the wording of the Constitution.  One of their chief arguments, not being able to truly contest the principles in the document, is that it was written by dead white farmers whose ideas are totally out of touch with the events of our day.  This argument ignores the facts that the principles embodied in the Constitution are derived from millenia of human experience and thought and that the "farmers" were actually among the best educated people in the world at the time and were experienced farmers, business owners, clergy, soldiers, philosophers and public servants.

There is no question (at least among serious students of history) that the US Constitution was an expansion of Federal power.  The problem at the time was that the Articles of Confederation left the union open to being picked apart by large European powers, mostly through connivance - since force would likely have been met with a united response from the American states.  And the Articles of Confederation had already proven inadequate for managing the financial obligations incurred in the war as well as the commercial and legal issues that were raised in the course of the Revolutionary War. 

In spite of what flaws there may be in the US Constitution, it was as Cleon Skousen calls it "a 5,000 year leap" forward in the governments of men.  And, it still stands as the best form of government in existence today, even after some significant dismantling and perversion by forces (legislatures as well as courts) over the past 100 years. 

In fact, most of the flaws cited today are those created in the past 100 years by those who are seeking to destroy the Constitution.  The beauty of the US Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) as originally framed and interpreted is that it created a strictly limited Federal government while explicitly recognizing that the powers of government derive solely from the governed.  Prior to this time, nearly every government in the world assumed that the powers of government derived solely from God onto the shoulders of the monarch, and that the citizens were not citizens, they were subjects (a person who is under the dominion or rule of a sovereign) and they had NO inherent rights, the king being accountable only to God for the use of his power.

The Magna Charta was a huge leap forward in that it made the king accountable to the nobles and the people through the powers given to the parliament.  Previously the only accountability of the king was to those who could wield sufficient military or financial power to bring him to heel.  And financial power without the military might to back it was simply an invitation to have debts cancelled and wealth transferred at the point of bloody sword.

Anarchy or total self-government is not a realistic model for sustainable society in today's world.  In fact, the anarchist movement is largely a tool of the statists.  If the model of the anarchists were accepted, and every man became a law unto himself, human nature (essentially unchanged through 6,000 years of recorded human history) would soon find the strong preying on the weak.  The victims would band together and seek the protection of the strongest, or strength in numbers.  Either way, they would immediately have to trade some or all of their personal sovereignty for increased security.   The strongest would protect them and demand obedience and we would have feudalism and monarchy in short order.  Again, the stronger would "eat the sovereignty" the weaker until Empires were rebuilt and the monarch (the state) would again be the source of all authority and individuals would have surrendered all their individual sovereignty so that they would be prey only to one predator (their monarch) rather than be prey to a hundred different bullies.

The only time self-government (total individual sovereignty) will work is when the individuals will also agree to relinquish their sovereignty promptly (in a minute - e.g., minutemen militia) for self defense and the apprehension of predators (of the 2-legged variety), and agree to a common set of public standards for interaction (e.g.,  thou shalt not steal...).

Realistically speaking, the US Constitution has worked out very well for us so far.  It's bedrock is under unremitting attack right now and if it falls, the end result will be despotism, not freedom.  The US Constitution has successfully limited government and assured individual freedom for more than 200 years and helped create the most prosperous and powerful  nation on earth - powered by the will of individuals who believe that these freedoms are worth defending and that the principles underlying this structure are eternal beacons for the happiness of both individuals and society.

Coming Up - The Rightful Role of Government - Part 2, including...

• Predation by the minority
• Predation by the majority
• The Rule of Law

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.

Bernie Sanders v Donald Trump for President - Hurray!

Today's Wall Street Journal features a front page article titled, "Unhappy Voters Shake Up Contest."  The article notes that Hillary Clinton's lead in the polls is sinking while her Democratic opponent Bernie Sanders has jumped to 25%, from less than 10%.  Likewise, it points out that Jeb Bush, once the heir apparent now finds himself running in third, with Donald Trump pulling the top numbers among Republicans.

I look with relish and uncommon excitement at a presidential election that would pit Bernie Sanders against Donald Trump.

First of all, if those were the two picks, for the first time in decades we would have two contenders who are truly, fundamentally, different from each other, instead of having candidates who were just two different shades of the same color.

Second, this would be the first presidential election in my memory where the two candidates are not saying whatever they think it takes to get elected and instead are taking principled, and frequently unpopular stands that are consistent with their ideologies.  Both men appear to be willing and able to state their convictions and stand up for them, regardless of any pressure to do otherwise.

Third, this particular match-up would give Americans the chance to make a clear choice between the two competing economic models of the last century - a choice that historic facts would appear to be moot, but still it persists.

Bernie Sanders is an unapologetic Socialist.  For decades he has consistently voted for laws and measures that drove this country closer and closer to the socialist ideal.  He makes no apologies for his approach and he doesn't try to hide it. 

While I personally find it amazing that anyone can look at the lessons of history and see the massive failures of socialism in the former USSR and China, and any other country that has embraced the policy of trying to make their people all equally poor (except for those ruling elites), and yet continue to espouse such blatant stupidity, nay economic suicide; still, I find Bernie Sanders admirable in his consistent commitment and advocacy of his principles.

In sharp economic contrast to Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump is an unapologetic capitalist.  Unlike the hypocrisy of uber-rich George Soros, Warren Buffet and Oprah Winfrey, who having feathered their own nests through capitalism now seek to destroy the means for others to attain similar levels of prosperity, Donald Trump continues to espouse policies that would keep the American Dream alive and keep the doors to individual success and prosperity open to all comers who are willing to work hard and smart.

Unfortunately, I suspect that if the establishment fails to keep these two zealots out of office, they will arrange for the untimely demise of any President of the United States (POTUS) who they cannot control.  And neither Bernie Sanders nor Donald Trump sound at all like the kind of men who will dance to any tune that is not their own.  I am not one of those crackpot conspiracy theorists, seeing some nefarious hand in everything.  Still, I recognize the realities of human nature and power.  Those who benefit from the ongoing trend toward socialism in this country will do what they can to encourage the movement that direction.

I know many Republicans are as horrified at the prospect of having The Donald as their candidate or POTUS as some Democrats are at the prospect of having Bernie as their front man.  Still, for the American People, I hope that each of these two contenders manage to knock out the same-old-same-old front runners from both parties and give us a real, discernible choice in this upcoming presidential election.  I think it would be just what the country needs - a clear choice instead of choosing between socialism (liberal Democrats) and socialism lite (moderate Republicans).

Let's have a real, public, debate over the virtues of capitalism v socialism.  Let Donald and Bernie go toe-to-toe and let the American People make a clear choice for one economic approach versus another.  I am hopeful that the majority will choose the opportunity of capitalism over the oppression of socialism.

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.

Am I Being Judgmental?

 The Bible teaches, "Judge not."  Or does it?

"Judge not" is not the whole of the teaching.  What it really says, is, "Judge not, that ye be be not judged.  For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged"  Matthew 7:1-2

Many take this as a commandment that we should not judge others.  However, that understanding is false, because it is incomplete.  In John 7:24, we are told, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."  In Psalms (37:30) we read, "The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment."

So, actually, we are commanded by God to judge.  And, we are cautioned to use righteous judgment. 

That begs the question, "what is righteous judgment?" 

In part this can be answered by saying what is unrighteous judgment.

Hypocritical judgment, where we point the finger at someone else when we are guilty of even worse, unrepentant, behavior is unrighteous judgment.  This is what Jesus was referring to when he said we had to first remove the beam from our own eye (truly repenting), before we can legitimately help remove the speck (mote) from another's eye.

When our judgment is based on presuming to know things that we cannot know, we are engaged in unrighteous judgment.  For example, when you assume you know the motives for an action, unless the  actor told you their motives, you cannot know it, because you cannot read minds. 

Another example of this is when you assume someone is going to Hell, or Heaven.  You don't know the thoughts and intents of their hearts (which God will use to judge us), and you don't even know ALL the acts another has done, so you lack the necessary information to make righteous judgment on this matter.  And, God has reserved this particular judgment and kept it out of our hands.

You can exercise righteous judgment by judging actions (rather than actors).  To put it another way, you can righteously judge that someone who is commiting adultery is doing something wrong (evil).  But, if you judge that the adulterer is going to Hell you have engaged in unrighteous judgment.  You can righteously judge whether or not someone has broken a law of man or of God, but you cannot know if a person has broken a law of conscience.

Why am I talking about judgment in a politico-religious blog?  

This exploration was spurred by something that Star Parker said in her book, "Uncle Sam's Plantation."  She took the stance that much of the problems of poverty (and society) today is the replacement of the idea of right and wrong with the notion of values. She sums the idea in the following words,

“Life is chance, and values are relative. I can do whatever I think is right”

Then, she goes on to relate this idea to the actual behavior of a variety of individuals, including herself.

The events of the past several years reveal the natural consequences of a society embracing that philosophy. People blowing up federal buildings, mailing letter bombs or anthrax, disposing of live newborns in dumpsters—these are all acts that seemed right to those who carried them out. This type of moral relativism, taken to its logical extreme, can even justify using airplanes as human bombs to murder innocent civilians. I found it easy to reject the concept of faith because all absolutes were judgmental,

She found it easy to reject the concept of faith because faith introduces the idea that right and wrong can be absolutes instead of relative.  And all absolutes are judgmental.  And, being judgmental is being bad because we are told to "judge not."

Some of my children have accused my wife and I of being judgmental because we stated, without apology, that sexual promiscuity (heterosexual and homosexual) is wrong.  They conflated our condemnation of the acts with a condemnation of the actor (their friend).  Honestly, their confusion on that point is easy to understand.  Many folks don't make the distinction between the act and the actor when they make or express their judgments.  It isn't uncommon to hear someone say, "... he is a bad person, he did bad things."

The irony of my childrens' condemnation of my wife and I as "judgmental" is that they are probably the most judgmental people I have ever met.  Those who don't agree with their views on social matters are almost universally determined to be bad people.  Case in point, if someone opposes gay-marriage, they are a bad person, trying to deny same-sex-marriage proponents of their right to pursue happiness in their own way.

This is also consistent with the utter intolerance of atheists for religionists.  A recent FB dialog I had with folks on that topic is illustrative.  The response of atheists was that religionists should "just shut the f*** up."  Profanity, vitriol and personal attacks while discussing a topic are hallmarks of bigotry and intolerance.  Bigotry and intolerance are hallmarks of unrighteous judgment.

We also see this kind of bigotry and unrighteous judgment in the most ardent proponents of the LGBT movement and among racists (of any color).  The key point here is to make sure that we are not having a beam in our own eye on the point of judgment, regardless of the size of the chunk of wood in someone else's eye.  We cannot excuse our own bad behaviors by pointing to the bad behaviors of our opponents.

But, don't get me wrong here.  I am not saying we should continue to let liberal bullies beat on us while we scream "forgive me, for I have sinned."  Rather, we need to be very assertive and even confrontational without resorting to profanity, vitriol and personal attacks.  We need to argue the cases for Constitutional Conservatism by pointing stubbornly to facts and remaining calm.  When the bullies throw punches, we need to block their attacks and counter-punch with clear-headed facts and cogent arguments, rather than losing our temper and resorting to tantrums or purely emotional responses.

There is nothing inherently wrong with an emotional argument, as long as it can be backed up with facts.  But bear in mind that an emotional argument without facts is just an opinion, not an argument.

For instance, you can say, "I know that people who live by Christian principles, live happier, more fulfilling lives."  That is an opinion and an emotional argument.  It may be right and I may agree with it or it may move me.  AND when you can also cite unbiased surveys and studies that support your assertions, it moves from being simply an opinion or emotional argument into the realm of being a cogent, well founded argument in favor of your position.

To give you a counter example, consider the arguments of the gun-banners.  They assert that banning firearm ownership, or severely limiting it makes society safer.  This is an emotional argument and an opinion.  The emotion is based on the fear of being harmed by someone with a gun.  Unfortunately for the gun-banners, the studies and statistics show that banning or severely limiting legal gun ownership consistently results in higher rates of violent crime.  Consider the current high murder rates of Chicago and New York where legal gun ownership is highly restricted, with those low murder rates in Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix where gun ownership is widespread and the right to carry is largely unimpeded.

Or, to take this back to one of Ms. Star's points, consider that every time the minimum wage is increased, the unemployment and underemployment among the most economically challenged people in this country increases.  Employers, forced to pay more for each employee, cut back on the number of employees and pushes each employee still on the payroll to be more productive to make up for the folks who are no longer on the line, or they fire them all and hire robots instead.

Of course, the liberal answer to that last point is, "there oughta be a law against that." and then they try to push forward the nanny-state further by one more piece of ineffective, taxing piece of legislation.

But, back to the point about judgment, Ms. Star Parker says it well when she says, 

“God is your source, not the government!”

We should look to God, He is our source.  Look to His plan for our happiness (to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life [Moses 1:39]), and judge the actions of ourselves and others against that absolute measure of right and wrong, instead of using the changeable measuring sticks of society and government.

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

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.