Conspiracy Theory or Fact?

(c) 2014 by Stefan Kunert; Used under license from DepositPhotos.com

When does a conspiracy theory become fact?

We have been conditioned to discount and deride accusations of conspiracy. “Conspiracy theorists” are openly derided and automatically depicted as tinfoil hat-wearing near-lunatics. For many years I, like so many others, tended to adopt this same benign disregard for anything labeled a conspiracy or conspiracy theory.

Recently, my thinking was challenged when I read an author who asserted that throughout history conspiracies are the norm, not the exception. I decided to test the validity of this assertion. To do that I started with defining the word conspiracy. This forced me to first look at the definition of the root word, conspire.

A conspiracy is formed when people conspire. Self-referential definitions are meaningless, by themselves. So, to define what is a conspiracy, we must first determine what it means to conspire.

Per Dictionary.com conspire, a verb, means:

1.     to agree together, especially secretly, to do something wrong, evil, or illegal:

2.     to act or work together toward the same result or goal:

In today’s world the terms “wrong”, and “evil” are considered relativistic value judgements; meaning what is considered wrong by one person may be considered right, by another. This is epitomized in the saying, “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.”

This means, we must discard those values-based elements from the definition. They become part of the connotation versus the denotation of the word. We all know that the connotation of a conspiracy is that it has bad intentions. Unfortunately, that connotation is preventing us from accurately evaluating the truth of the notion that conspiracies are widespread and normal.

For similar reasons we can disregard the connotation of “illegal.” What is legal varies too widely from one part of the world to another to provide any help with this exercise.  For instance, is countries where Sharia Law prevails homosexuality is illegal and punishable with death, while in the US it is legally recognized as a form of marriage. Because of this variability we must discard the illegal modifier as another value-based part of the connotation rather than a legitimate part of the definition of conspire or conspiracy.

This leaves us with the simple elements of agreeing together, acting or working together, toward the same goal or result. While “especially secretly” is thrown in, that too is more of a connotation than the actual definition. It isn’t reasonable to assert that a publicly viewable conspiracy is less of a conspiracy than a private one. Public or private, they both meet the same criteria of being two or more people working cooperatively toward a common goal.

Per Dictionary.com a conspiracy, a verb and a noun is defined as follows:

1.     the act of conspiring.

2.     an unlawful, harmful, or evil plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3.     a combination of persons for such an unlawful, harmful, or evil purpose:

4.     He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

5.     Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

6.     any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Again, to get at the definition we must strip away the values-based connotations which have been used to modify the definition. When we set aside “unlawful”, “evil”, and “harmful” that also allows us to disregard the adjectives (or adverbs) of “crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.”

All this leads me to the unambiguous definition of conspire (the verb) to be:

·       Two or more people agreeing to do something.

And conspiracy (the noun) becomes:

·       Two or more people cooperating to achieve a common goal

Stripping out relativistic values from the definition, we are left with a definition that can apply as accurately to the Boy Scouts, or the US Senate, as to Al Qaeda.  

Well, perhaps the US Senate doesn’t qualify as a whole because they seldom appear to be working toward the same result or goal. However, the political parties of those Senators certainly qualify as conspiracies. The members of their political parties conspire with each other to do what it takes to elect their chosen minions to public offices and political appointments where those conspirators can work to further the agenda of the political party (the conspiracy).

Interestingly, using this working definition, any business that is more than a sole proprietorship is correctly defined as a conspiracy. Add in the fact that the notes from board meetings of most companies are routinely classified as corporate secrets, we can make a blanket inference that secrecy is the same as “evil, illegal, criminal, fraudulent, etc.

The same could be said of almost any meeting of top government officials (for all countries).

My point?

The next time someone seeks to denigrate a story as a “conspiracy theory” instead of just going along with the potential smear-job consider the fact that the accuser is almost certainly part of a different conspiracy that has its own objective(s) and the conspiracy theorist is gumming things up for the author’s pet conspiracy.

© 2022 Thomas K Sheppard, All rights reserved.

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

The Roots of Liberty

Creation of Adam (C) Sergey Nivens licensed through DepositPhotos.com

Most of my career has been focused on solving problems. First as a computer programmer, then as a systems analyst and later as a project and program manager my job was to solve problems for my clients. Early on I learned that if you can correctly define the problem you are about half way to solving it. However, correctly defining a problem is not as easy at is sounds. Problems are often so distracting, urgent, messy, volatile, or all of the above that it is difficult to separate the symptoms from the actual problem.

To illustrate this concept consider a situation where fires are springing up all around you. What do you do first?  Do you call the Fire Department, start throwing water, or, do you stop the arsonist from starting more fires? Good sense demands the latter. However, when you are distracted by all the smoke, flames, noise, panic, and confusion it is often easier to try to extinguish one fire and then another. Unfortunately, when you treat the symptoms (in this case the fire) your efforts are in vain because the real root of the problem keeps causing more symptoms.

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.

Henry David Thoreau

Thoreau's statement (above) illustrates the fact that, most of us are more than ready and willing to address symptoms while those who address the root of an issue are much more rare.

As a professional problem solver I was trained in techniques of root cause analysis. I have used those tools and techniques many times to ensure that the time, energy, and money provided to me was used to resolve root causes instead of being wasted treating symptoms. Metaphorically, instead of simply putting out fires I made sure the arsonist was dealt with first, then we could move on to putting out the fires and repairing the damage.

On July 4, 1776 The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America was published. Among the words of the Declaration it stated "... we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights..."

Allow me, please, to unpack this a bit and in my own order and hopefully I can explain the connection between the elements in this phrase, symptoms, and roots.

Unalienable Rights

Unalienable rights are rights ingrained into humanity. When governments seek to deprive people of these inherent, ingrained, and unalienable rights, they cannot rule in peace. They can only deprive people of these rights through the constant, consistent application of force and violence. Efforts to deprive people of these rights inevitably provoke strong resistance from people. Depending on the conditioning of the people this resistance can range from editorials in the press, petitions, peaceful protests in the streets, violent protests, assassinations, insurrections, and armed rebellions.  

If you look at the arc of events leading up to the American Revolution you see that same progression. The American Colonists first resorted to opinion pieces in the papers. From there to petitions sent to the government. When these seemed to be ignored, or worse used as pretext to attack them, they escalated to peaceful protests, then violent protests. Finally, finding their efforts only resulted in greater violence against them they came out in open rebellion against their government.

When their rebellion prevailed and they were able to establish their own government, instead of embracing a monarchy where an elite few made and enforced the laws, they opted to form a constitutional republic. A government "... of the People, by the People, and for the People." Through the power of elections, Americans are given the power of rebellion. Every election we can throw off those leaders who fail to represent our interests over their own, or those of others. This electoral system balances the power of the majority against the rights of the minority, and is based on the foundational principle that either the rights of every individual are important, or none are important. 

Endow

To endow is to equip. An endowment, often associated with large contributions to charitable institutions, is to provide a financial source of income which keeps providing benefits in perpetuity, forever. Their value typically exceeds anything we could give in return for them. Endowments are gifts, not purchases. 

These unalienable rights are a gift that equips us to live our lives in a manner that makes us responsible for our own outcomes, rather than allowing us to be victims of others' actions.

The most fundamental of our unalienable rights is freedom of conscience. The right to embrace and act on our own beliefs. This is only restrained if our actions have the effect of depriving others of their unalienable rights.

The unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, mentioned specifically in the Declaration, all rest upon our freedom of conscience.

By the Creator

Monarchies prevailed across the world at the time of the American Revolution. Under a monarchy (and other forms of dictatorship) all rights flow from the monarch (the King or Queen). If the ruler grants a right, s/he can subsequently revoke that right. History shows monarchs and dictators have rescinded rights and privileges from their people almost as often as they granted them.

In blatant defiance of all forms of dictatorship (monarchies or otherwise) the Declaration of Independence states that the Creator gifted these rights to humanity and no government has the authority to revoke them.  

Here we arrive at the root.

The implications of acknowledging a "Creator" are significant and affect everything that comes after that acknowledgement.

Many today embrace the notion that there is no Creator. They argue that against all the mathematical odds the extremely complex creatures and ecosystems which surround us came into being spontaneously and over eons of time have self-modified to result in the current state.  If one of these advocates of wholly natural evolution were somehow transported to a distant, uninhabited planet and there, amid the sands of a desert came upon a digital camera their reason would conclude that the camera was the product of a creator, an intelligent designer. They would never accept the argument that the cosmos had shaken the sand of that desert so long that the minerals and crystals there had spontaneously formed to make this camera. And yet, they can look at the human optic system, which is much more complicated than that of a camera and assert that it was not created, it evolved.

The root reason why many people today reject the notion of an intelligent Creator is not through lack of evidence. Rather they reject the Creator out of fear. What people fear the most is the unknown.

A mind which can create the cosmos we see is infinitely more capable than us. If we cannot comprehend the cosmos, its origins, its rules, its destination, its purpose, then we certainly cannot comprehend the intelligence which set it all up. Living in the shadow of such an unfathomable and powerful intelligence is naturally very frightening. 

If you acknowledge the existence of a Creator, what choices does that lead to?

A) You can choose to pretend that the Creator doesn't exist. Because you cannot fathom the mind of the Creator you can imagine that you are of no consequence. The Creator takes no notice of you, so you are free to do as you please.

B) You can choose to cower in fear of unwittingly offending such a being and finding yourself on the wrong end of the wrath of a cosmic power. Down this road lies a life of superstition. Like the ancient Greeks, you erect altars to all aspects of the Creator you can imagine. To cover your bases you even set up an altar to "the Unknown God" mentioned by Paul in Acts 17:23.

C) You can seek to find the Creator in order to either align your life with the Creator's purposes or defy that power, seeking to thwart it. This course is quite challenging because there is nothing you can do which will uncover the existence of the Creator. You cannot force the Creator into the light of day under a microscope or a telescope. You can only find the Creator if the Creator chooses to reveal himself to you, and the very concept of revelation really scares most people and is easily faked by someone seeking power.

For now, allow me to set aside the issue of revelation. Instead, let's focus on the implications from our being endowed by our Creator with these inalienable rights.

If the Creator thought it worthwhile to give us these rights, then it stands to reason the Creator will hold us accountable for what we do with these rights. It is logical that it is especially important whether or not we seek to preserve them, or seek to deprive others of them.

It seems clear to me that the Declaration of Independence makes clear that the Creator is the root of our rights and the associated duty to preserve those rights. We may ignore the many witnesses in nature, history, and word which bear witness to the intelligent hand of a Creator but our willful ignorance does not alleviate us one whit from our accountability to honor and defend these unalienable rights.

Divisiveness

Today we are in the midst of what is still a largely civil conflict over these rights. At the root of this conflict is the belief in a Creator. If you acknowledge a Creator then you must deliberately defy that Creator or seek to align with that Creator. It becomes an important, conscious choice with significant consequences.

Those who seek to deprive us of our rights almost unanimously also seek to deny us the rights of conscience, particularly when it comes to religion. If our religion will adapt to not oppose their views then it is marginally acceptable. However, if our religion doesn't admit of compromise on fundamental issues, then we are to be redefined as dangerous extremists and turned into enemies of the state. Once that latter indictment sticks, then the full power of government can be unleashed to exterminate us and eradicate our views.

Our best defense against being destroyed (spiritually and physically) by this escalating conflict is to speak up in defense of our rights. Silence is acceptance. Show your gratitude to the Creator by speaking up in defense of the rights endowed to us. Use your voice. Use your vote. Use your time and money to support people and organizations who are trying to defend our rights.

When you speak up in defense of our rights you will definitely offend some people and incur the anger of others. Speak up and defend rights politely, but firmly. Don't resort to demonization and name calling. If they are offended when you are not being offensive it is their choice, not yours. 

When you remain silent and inactive in the defense of our rights you will offend your Creator and may incur that divine wrath.

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

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.

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.

Why All This Fuss About Socialism?

In the early days of Obama, many Conservatives loudly decried him as a Socialist.  A lot of mainstream folks responded with either indifference or confusion?  They either didn't believe he was a Socialist, or they didn't care.  Some even decried the Conservatives as being divisive by applying labels and using "-isms" to pigeonhole people.

A lot of people didn't seem to care about or know why they should care about having a Socialist President of the United States (POTUS).

In a previous post, I defined Socialism as:

1.  a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole
2.  procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society  to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist   principles.

George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian Socialist, said that:

"Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vol. 20, p. 895.)

I don't intend here to rehash my earlier remarks about how Socialism and Christianity are mortal foes.  Rather, I want to point out here why anyone who values freedom should be opposed to Socialism and Socialist policies.

To be clear, I am not talking here about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Russian, China or any other country than the United States of America.  If anyone in France, the United Kingdom, Greece, or most of Europe is reading this, then they too might want pay attention and apply these lessons and ideas within their own country.

What I am talking about here is the creeping Socialism that has been overtaking the USA for decades now.

It began in the days of US President Woodrow Wilson.  He called himself a "Progressive."  The reality is that in US political history, you can use the terms Socialist, Progressive, Fascist and Liberal interchangeably.  They are just different shirts worn by the same guy (or gal).

Wilson started us down the road of Socialism, and he did it with the help of some pretty big Capitalists.  Which may account in part for the mistaken notion that Fascism is somehow a "right-wing" phenomenon, when in fact Fascism is nothing more or less than Socialism that wraps itself in the flag of a specific country and says, "We are #1," and then puts the government in charge of everything, either directly or indirectly.

If you don't believe me that Fascism and Socialism are the same guy, perhaps you will believe someone who experienced the Nazi takeover of Austria first hand.  Kitty Werthmann  was a teenager when Hitler annexed Austria.  You may remember some basics of the story from the Julie Andrews musical "The Sound of Music."

Here are a couple of highlights from Kitty's story that the Von Trapp family managed to avoid.

Hilter eliminated unemployment. He made it mandatory that no one could buy food if they didn't have a food ration card.  And, you didn't get a food ration card if you didn't have a job.  And if you didn't have a food ration card, you starved to death.  So, all those mothers who wanted to stay at home and raise their children now had no choice.  They had to go out and get jobs in the working world.

...a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn’t work, you didn’t get a ration card, and if you didn’t have a card, you starved to death.
“Women who stayed home to raise their families didn’t have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men."

To "help them out" Hitler instituted state-run day care (can you spell Head Start?).  As a result, the state was able to directly educate an entire generation of children from their infancy.

“When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers.
“You could take your children ages four weeks old to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, seven days a week, under the total care of the government.
“The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology."

Hitler eliminated a lot of the poor health in society.  Because health care was nationalized, it was the civic duty of citizens to be fit and healthy.

“Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail.”
And then things got worse.
“The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free.
“We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had."

But being fit was only half the story...

“In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps. The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated.
“So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work.
“I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van.
“I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months.
“They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.
“As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia."

And, they had a Consumer Protection Agency too, just like we recently got...

"My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables.
“ Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn’t meet all the demands.
“Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control."

I could go on and on with the list of things that the National Socialists implemented, welfare, nationalized health care (free aka "affordable"), nationalized education (free education for all), gun registration followed by gun confiscation.  

One of the earliest was the removal of religion from the public square. This was followed by encouraging youth to have sex and girls to "have a baby for Hitler." Babies which would be raised by the state. 

These changes were not all done at once.  And, they were not forced on the people, at first.  They gratefully traded their freedom for the security of free government guaranteed benefits.

And here we hit the crux of matter as to why all this fuss about Socialism.  It is simply this:

Socialism makes citizens into slaves. 

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

1. Full Employment: Slaves don't ever have to worry about unemployment.  Mom and Dad, and even the children work when they become old enough.  Mom's 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.
2. Economic Equality: 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% and then the Master gives them what she or he thinks is appropriate to keep them healthy enough to keep working.
3. 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 made the Southern cotton industry get 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?
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Safety 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Opportunities in Government Service: There is opportunity for a better life... 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.

When I first read the title of Star Parker's book, Uncle Sam's Plantation, I thought, "Great, now another black writer is going to condemn this country and make up some notion of how people of color don't get enough breaks.  I couldn't have been more wrong.

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.  A stance that 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 protege Franklin D. Roosevelt. And, 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.  I believe 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.

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.