America the Great

The history of the United States of America has it share of unsightly stains. I categorize a "stain" on our history as things which run counter to the ideals and principles espoused in The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights.

The most enduring and noteworthy stains have been slavery, racism, and elitism, which both run directly counter to the foundational principle that "all men are created equal." An emerging stain is the intolerant, and anti-democratic movements of 'social justice', critical race theory (CRT), and 'wokeness.'

In spite of very real stains, the United States of America is unequaled in the history of the world for enabling the political liberty and economic prosperity of people all over the world.

Part 1 - Slavery

In fairness to the Founding Fathers, many of them recognized the hypocrisy of their egalitarian principles and the institution of slavery. They made some concessions in their principles to keep the states united as one nation. At the same time, they took steps to minimize the political leverage that might accrue to slave owners by discounting the value of their human chattel with regards to apportioning legislative seats. 

I believe the Founding Fathers also trusted that, over time, the principle of 'forming a more perfect union' would continue to erode slavery until it could be abolished entirely. Which is exactly what happened. 

The Three-Fifths Compromise

The so-called three-fifths compromise, alluded to above, is actually a racist statement, but it may surprise some to realize that it isn't racist towards blacks. It is racist toward Native Americans (Indians):

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons

Note that the words 'slave' and 'black' are not used anywhere is the Constitution. Rather the terms used are "free Persons," persons "bound to service for a term of years" (i.e., indentured servants), and "all other Persons." Only the "Indians" (all Native Americans) who were undeniably free persons, were called out and excluded by race from either category.

As a matter of Constitutional law, slavery was not a racial matter. Slavery was a legal status.

US Civil War Ended Slavery

The US Civil War was the slave owners' last ditch effort to preserve the institution of slavery which was, then, cornerstone to their economic livelihood. They had no way to know that less than thirty years after the Civil War (about 1894), Eli Whitney would invent the cotton gin, which would effectively eliminate a significant reliance on manual labor for the production of cotton.

Regardless of arguments over states' rights versus slavery as the proximate cause of the Civil War, it is incontrovertible that the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution is directly linked to the Civil War. It was passed in January of 1865 and ratified in December of that same year. The amendment ensured that the debate over the legality of slavery would be ended when the Union prevailed over the Confederate States of America. The amendment converted the Emancipation Proclamation, a potentially temporary executive order using the wartime powers of President Abraham Lincoln, into the overarching law for all states in the United States of America.

Separating Racism and Slavery

The 13th Amendment does not address racism, at all. It further perfects the Union by eliminating slavery. It also eliminates the portion of the US Constitution which discounted the voting power of slaves, because it eliminated the legal status of slavery.

AMENDMENT XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Source: National Archives 

Slavery is a legal status, not a racial one. 

There is ample evidence in the historical record to support this assertion. If we accept the terms 'black' and 'white' as racial identifiers, then the fact that blacks in America owned slaves substantially destroys the argument that slavery is a racial issue. Further, the historical evidence supporting the involuntary servitude (i.e., slavery) of Irish prisoners brought to the American colonies by the English destroys the remaining foundation of any argument that slavery in the Americas was purely a racist institution.

Part 2 Racism

Racism Defined

Racism has existed from time-immemorial. It is based on prejudice.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines racism as:

• Belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
• Behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice
• Systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
• A political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles

Prejudice

Webster defines prejudice as: 

• injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights
• preconceived judgment or opinion
• an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
• an instance of such judgment or opinion
• an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

Notice that prejudice is characterized by being based on lack of knowledge and irrationality.

Prejudice and racism are nothing new. Throughout history, nearly every distinct tribe, people, and nation have fostered prejudice against others.  

Among the Native American tribes of the USA most nations referred to themselves as some variant of "the human beings." This implied that other nations were less than human.

The peoples of the USA believed they had a "manifest destiny" to conquer and control all of North America (and at times beyond those limits).

Romans considered themselves superior to the barbarian nations on their borders.

Germans are better than the French. The French are better than the Germans.

Before World War II, the racial prejudice of the Japanese led them declare themselves the "master race" and justify their conquest of Korea, China, and everywhere else as a logical outcome of their racial superiority and natural right to rule.

Nearly everyone is aware of the Aryan master race theory promoted by Adolf Hitler as the rationalization for the subjugation of all "inferior" races and even the extermination of specific races. His delusion led to the death of more than six million Jews as well as contributing to the deaths of 75 to 80 million soldiers and civilians in World War II.

Racial Slavery Justified

Regardless of the legal nicety distinguishing the issues of slavery and racism, it is irrefutable that, in the years leading up to the Civil War, most slaves in the United States of America were of African descent. The ethnic characteristics of the Africans were often very different than the European ethnic characteristics of those in power. This facilitated the mental gymnastics of Bible-toting slave owners to justify their enslavement, even in the face of Christian mores condemning slavery.

They reasoned that the ethnic differences between Africans and Europeans were outward manifestations of fundamental differences in the intellectual and spiritual capacities of Africans and Europeans.

This ethnicity-driven attitude toward slavery contrasts sharply with the historical justification of slavery as the merciful fate of the weak at the hands of the strong. Throughout human history, those who survived the violent conquest of their people were enslaved.

The Root of Raced-Based Slavery

Slave owners in the USA did not have the pretext of conquest to provide any moral justification for slavery, so they had to invent a moral pretext. If Africans were inherently inferior to Europeans, then enslaving Africans was an act of service, lifting them above their brute existence and into the lowest rungs of civilization. 

At best, this was a specious argument. At worst it was simply a lie and blatant rationalization to quell a guilty conscience. The suppression of teaching slaves to read and write was a necessary measure to prevent the refutation of this ethnic rationalization of slavery. Blacks who could read, write, and reason as well as any European would put the lie to the argument that they were inherently inhuman brutes, barely better than savage beasts, or other domesticated livestock.

To support slavery in the USA, the ethnic differences of Africans and Europeans had to be portrayed as more than ethnic variations. Instead the Africans had to be transformed into a species that was similar to humans, but something slightly less. They had to be portrayed as a separate race of humans-like creatures with capabilities and potentials distinctly different, and less than European humans.

Part 3 - Modern Stains

Critical Race Theory (CRT)

CRT is nothing more or less than racism. Its foundational concept is that individual and collective behavior is predestined based on skin color. But, CRT is not color-blind. It is specifically and particularly anti-white.

Under the notions of CRT, white people are evil oppressors and black people are oppressed victims.

A key premise is that any institution (such as the government of the United States of America) which has been created and supported by white people is inherently designed to promote white-supremacy. Further, such institutions are irredeemably corrupted by this racist purpose and cannot be corrected. Instead, they must be dismantled and replaced by institutions built by black people. The assumption inherent in the is either that black people will inherently create untainted institutions, or that building institutions which are anti-white is definitively "good" because white people are defined as "evil."

It doesn't take a revelation from God to see that such vituperative views will inevitably lead to genocidal violence. Violent, genocide is the logical end of advocacy of any philosophy based on irrational hatred of others because of their inherent traits.

Racial violence deriving from CRT will come from any or all of three sources:

1. As a natural extension of CRT as its advocates embrace their own version of Hitler's "Final Solution" and seek to exterminate whites.
2. White supremacists winning adherents and supporters to aggressively "protect" whites from  increasingly threatening and militant CRT supporters.
3. Ordinary people who reject racism, embrace Constitutional principles, and band together to defend themselves against militant CRT black supremacists and militant white supremacists.

When that happens, it will be another stain on the history of the USA.

Wokeness

While the dictionary definition of wokeness sounds like a good thing, its practice is pretty vile. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines wokeness as:

Aa state of being aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality

Being aware of social problems such as racism and inequality is a good thing. If we are unaware of problems, we are nearly incapable of resolving them. Unfortunately, in practice, wokeness is particularly centered in the notion of intersectionality. 

The way in which different types of discrimination (= unfair treatment because of a person's sex, race, etc.) are connected to and affect each other

Intersectionality, in practice, is a game of one-upmanship where each person tries to show how much more (potentially) they are oppressed than others because of their unique behaviors or characteristics. The underlying motive is to secure preferential treatment for some intersections more than for others. The reasoning is that the greater preference is required to offset the greater degree of oppression or discrimination. The reality is that practitioners of intersectionality want to derive financial benefits based wholly on their characteristics (inherent or otherwise) without any effort or value-add to society. The narcissistic foundation of intersectionality is that society should pay for the enrichment is supposedly receives from the presence of such intersections.

The Irony of Wokeness

The consummate irony of intersectionality is that when you carry it to its logical end point, you inevitably arrive at a doctrine which determines that the individual, is the ultimate expression of intersectionality and thus merits the greatest degree of societal protection and support. 

Individual worth and protection, regardless of other characteristics, is the cornerstone of the principles of Constitutional law and liberty. That is why the Constitution begins with the words, "We the People..." 

Social Justice

The Cambridge Dictionary defines social justice as:

"The idea that all people should have the same rights and opportunities and that a country's wealth and resources should benefit everyone in that country"

Like wokeness, this is another movement that sounds right in its definition, but is totally wrong in its execution.

Let's unpack this definition to find out where it goes wrong.

 "all people should have the same rights"

That statement is totally in agreement with the founding principles of the USA. 

 "all people should have the same ... opportunities"

Life Isn't Fair

Here, we begin to skate on thin ice. Opportunities are often closely linked with circumstances and personal characteristics. Suggesting that everyone should be given the same opportunities is based on the false assumption that life is fair and evenhanded in the distribution of our circumstances and characteristics. 

Some of us have greater intellectual capacity than others. The person with an IQ of 60 is unlikely to have the opportunity to attend MIT because that low IQ indicates the inability of that person to succeed at the level of intellectual endeavors needed to matriculate and succeed in studies at MIT.

Although there is not equivalent of and IQ for artistic talent, someone with my mediocre level of artistic skill is not going to benefit from, and hence not receive, an opportunity to attend Julliard. My abilities simply aren't sufficient to qualify me for attendance. 

Legislating such "fairness" of opportunities without regard to abilities will have the end result of destroying excellence, and all the benefits that come from excellence. Excellent inventions such as smart phones, excellent art such as a Warhol (even mediocre art such as a Bob Rossi), and many other marvelous and beautiful enhancements to our lives will cease to occur.

Outcomes

"a country's wealth and resources should benefit everyone in that country"

This component of social justice is focused on individual outcomes. Everyone, means every individual. The premise here is that we should all get the same outcomes. The assumption is that these outcomes are universally good, hence the word "benefit."

The bitter reality is that the only way you can ensure that everyone gets the same benefit is by denying all but the most rudimentary benefits to everyone. Worse, such enforced egalitarian poverty is at odds with basic human nature and thus is doomed to failure. Enforced poverty will inevitably lead to corruption as people seeks ways to manipulate the system to provide themselves with what levels of comfort they want (regardless of what they may, or may not, deserve).

Capitalism

Worst of all, this phrase is totally anti-capitalist. 

The beating heart of capitalism is sustained by two things:

1. the free and uncoerced exchange of goods and services
2. the natural principle of supply and demand

While governments and individuals may strive, or succeed, to exert coercion in exchanges, the natural principles of supply and demand cannot be subverted. They are inexorable.

Scarcity and utility are the natural drivers of value. People are willing to exchange more goods and services for those goods and services which are more scarce or of greater utility. They unwilling to exchange goods and services which are scarce or very useful and will do so only if the exchange is of equal or greater value to them.

Because of this natural principle, those who provide the most scarce or most useful goods and services will inevitably accrue a greater abundance of other goods and services than others.

Socialism

This is true even (or especially) in the halls of socialist governments, where valuable information or access is clandestinely and routinely traded for such goods and services as the holder of information or access desires. Political and economic power are commodities which are scarce and very useful. Thus, such egalitarian utopias almost immediately upon inception descend into corruption as illegal exchanges become the only means whereby anyone can rise above the enforced poverty dictated by the state.

Even if equality of outcomes were possible, it would be undesirable. The behavior of slaves is especially instructive in this point.

Social Justice is Economic Slavery

All slaves enjoy an equality of outcome from their labors. From their masters they get food, clothing, and shelter. The rewards do not increase in proportion to the success of the master's enterprise. As a result, when the master is not overseeing their work, slaves do only the minimal amount of work they are not forced to do.

No one will exert themselves to excellent inventions, art, innovations, or anything else, unless it will directly increase the rewards they receive for their efforts. You may argue that this should not be how people behave. However, you can just as effectively argue that the sun should rise in the West as many days as it rises in the East, and have just as much success at changing things.

Equality of Outcomes Equals Destitution

Equality of outcomes is both unattainable and undesirable. Equality of outcomes destroys initiative, innovation, excellence, and abundance. It leads only to universal poverty and destitution.

Part 4 - The Greatness of America

As I mentioned at the start of this essay, the United States of America is unequaled in the history of the world for enabling the political liberty and economic prosperity of people all over the world.

The USA is the first nation in the history of the world which was founded on the principles of individual liberty. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is the first government expressly designed to protect the rights of the people and preserve them from oppression by the state.

The success of the American Revolution, and its founding principles, led directly to democratic revolutions all over the world, beginning first with France. It is arguable that if the American Revolution had failed, most of what we currently know as "the free world" would still be governed by powerful monarchies. Instead, they are republics, governed by leaders who are elected by the people to serve for a time while representing the best interests of the people. 

The USA has fought and won two world wars to defend the political liberty of people in other countries. Unlike conquering powers throughout history, the USA did not require political or economic subservience or servitude of its defeated foes. Rather, it expended its treasure to rebuild its former foes and encouraged their self-determination.

In the wake of the successful imperial efforts of the USA (a stain in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) instead of colonizing and retaining the servitude of countries such as the Philippines, Cuba, Mexico, and most of the Pacific Islands, in the twentieth century the USA relinquished control of these countries to self-governance.

Through most of the twentieth century and now in the twenty-first century, the USA consistently eschews colonialism and imperialism. Preferring instead to encourage self-governance, the rule of law, and universal recognition and protection of the inalienable rights of humanity.

The Decline of America

Nation Building

Sadly, our national good intentions have been abused as politicians have been seduced into "nation building."  We try to impose our economic and political values and structures of governance on other nations which have not reached a point of maturity where they have a majority of people who desire these. 

Most recently we see this failure in Afghanistan. Instead of using our military might to teach the Taliban that it is not in their best interests to support those who attack the people of the USA, we took over their country for a time. While there, we tried to encourage democratic government. We failed because democracy is never something that can be imposed upon a people. They must win it for themselves. True, they may need outside help, but it is worth noting that no French armies took the field with American revolutionaries against the British. The greatest share of bleeding for freedom was done by Americans.

Previously, we saw this same lesson explained to us in Vietnam. Before that, it was taught to us in the jungles of Central America during the so-called wars of the Banana republics. In all those cases, after we removed our military, the governments of those countries collapsed and re-emerged in forms that the people of that country were willing to support.

Moral Decadence

At the same time as we are seeking to build other nations, our national public persona has come to be widely portrayed by media and popular culture as dissolute, licentious, and pleasure seeking. Our movies, societal trends, and many of our laws seem to disregard the importance of the nuclear family, religion, and the sanctity of life. 

All these destructive societal trends were manifested preceding the destruction of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. They are clearly critical performance indicators for the survival of any nation. Many of our current trends, are repugnant to wholesome people of all nations. It isn't hard to understand how Muslim extremists can gain credibility with more mainstream people by calling the USA "the Great Satan." Our society is becoming increasingly devilish and degenerate.

Conclusions

We have many old, and some new, stains on our history. Slavery, racism, CRT, wokeness, social justice, and even some imperialism are all stains on our history. Many of our old stains have been removed. Some persist and are made worse by new stains. Although the old stains of slavery and imperialism have been vanquished, racism persists and is being exacerbated by things like CRT and wokeness. Before the rise of CRT, racism in the USA was on the wane and nearly extinct.

 

Despite these stains on its robes, the USA is still the best place on earth to live. We enjoy a level of economic abundance, mobility, and liberty which is the envy of the world. Our political freedom (though rapidly eroding) is still substantially greater than anywhere else. The USA is still a shining city on a hill and a beacon of freedom. Those who say otherwise are either ignorant of the facts, or jealous and conniving for our downfall.

We will solve our social ills by ensuring that the law applies equally to everyone, without any regard to their immutable characteristics, or their choice of religion.

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 2023 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 Next US Civil War

Tom Sheppard

12/13/2020

During the first Civil War of the United States of America slavery was a central issue triggering the war.  In like manner, the next civil war of the United States of America will be triggered by slavery.

Where the first civil war was triggered by the issue of chattel slavery, where human beings were owned, bought, sold, and discarded in the same manner as we handle automobiles today, the second civil war will be triggered by economic slavery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

Tom Sheppard

10/16/2020

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

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

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

What is Fundamental Change?

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

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

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

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

Institutional Racism Has Been Removed

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

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

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

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

Racism Persists

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

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

A More Perfect Union

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government Cannot Change Human Nature

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

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

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

Successful Individual Transformations Achieved by Religion

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

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

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

Successful Collective Transformations Achieved by Religion

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

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

Successful Individual or Collective Transformations Achieved by Socialism

• The Soviet Union - NO 20+ million killed (just by Stalin) trying to make it work.
• Cambodia - NO 2+ million killed trying under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to make it work.
• Cuba - NO with nearly 100,000 dissidents dead, the country still looks like it is living in the early 1950's, at best. 
• Venezuela - NO 7,000+ dead by "security forces" with violent unrest and rampant poverty
• China - NO 45+ millions killed already with tens of thousands more in "re-education" camps right now.

With this sort of proven track record shown in this scorecard you would think that socialism in all its forms would be dead and buried, never to rise again.  However, like some shambling, shuffling, half-decayed horrifying walking-dead zombie in a B-grade film socialism continues to rise up and threaten the lives of us all.

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

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

Social Security is Socialism

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

Economic Security is Not a Right

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

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

Private Charity Beats Government Programs

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

Healthcare is Not a Right

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some practical ways to implement Action #1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action #2 - Make Your Views Known

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

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

Use social media appropriately – don’t go negative.

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

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

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

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

To that end, here are a few rules of the road to remember:

• Make sure your posts and comments encourage support for your views without denigrating others
• Make complimentary comments, likes, follows, and shares of posts which support your views without denigrating others.
• Engage in civil discourse instead of uncivil discourse.

Please note, avoiding denigrating other view points does not mean avoiding disagreeing with them.  I am not calling for the total avoidance of conflict.  Rather, I am calling for the use of constructive conflict instead of destructive conflict.  

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

Civil discourse means learning how to disagree without being disagreeable. 

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

Consider Running for Public Office

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.

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

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

Socialism = Slavery

Image (c) AFP

                               This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

Socialism makes citizens into slaves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the answer?

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

Food for thought!

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

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

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

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

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

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

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

Bigotry of the Welfare State

Image (c) Depositphotos.com

                               This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

The False Security of The Welfare State

Consider the welfare reform, passed in 1996.  The debate surrounding that legislation turned on a series of moral propositions: that

·        Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) had created a culture of poverty;

·        that it rewarded indolence,

·        fostered dependence, and

·        encouraged broken families.

The argument in favor of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was, in turn, framed in terms of the moral norms of equality, reciprocity, personal accountability, and the inherent dignity of work.

It is undeniable that the law has brought federal policy more in line with those deeply held American values.  As a result of the new law, many former welfare recipients have morphed into the working poor, and there are early signs that this change has left most Americans less prone to stigmatize them, and more disposed to assisting them through both governmental and nongovernmental outlets.

PRWORA was set to expire in 2002.  While some provisions have been extended as far as 2012, many key provisions have lapsed.  Since then, the welfare state has once again resumed its meteoric growth, most notably with the introduction of the disastrous and ironically named Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, and President Obama’s massive expansion of eligibility for food stamps.

This kind of wholesale government dole hasn’t been seen since Roman politicians handed out free food and tickets to the Coliseum in order to gain votes and distract voters from the real issues of the day.  The end result of that welfare program was the rise of the Roman Emperor and the dissolution of the Roman Republic.  After that time, Romans were no longer ruled by laws they enacted through an elected assembly.  Instead, they were ruled by the whims of a self-proclaimed monarch who brought all the branches of government directly into his own hands, where he could rule without regard to the will of the people, collectively or individually.

Image (c) Lenschanger and Depositphotos.com

Life on the Plantation Today

            Entrepreneur, author, and social critic Star Parker refers to the U.S. welfare program as Uncle Sam’s Plantation, and she maintains that it has effectively re-enslaved a significant portion of the black population in this country by making them dependent on government handouts.

What do you think of when your read that phrase: "Uncle Sam's Plantation?"  I get this image of Uncle Sam sitting on a horse in the midst of a field of cotton, cracking a whip over a bunch of poorly clothed black slaves, bent over working in the hot sun.

For me, that conjured image is offensive in a lot of ways.

First, Uncle Sam is supposed to be an image representing justice, the rule of law, opportunity, and the greatness of the United States of America.  To imagine that image overseeing a slave state is both disturbing and slanderous to the character the image should represent.

Second, slavery—regardless of who is enslaved—is a profound insult to the inherent divinity of humanity.  Children of God were not brought into this world to be owned like property, pushed to work by cruelty, and robbed of both their dignity and the fruits of their labor because of accidents of birth or the abuse of power.

Because of that appallingly offensive mental image that was conjured by the title, I was very reluctant to invest my time and money in reading Star Parker's book, Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It.  Knowing that the author is a black woman, and seeing the title, I was pre-disposed to dismiss it as an anti-American rant aimed at heaping guilt on whites for the misdeeds of generations long gone. 

I couldn't have been more wrong.

Star Parker is no apologist, nor is she approaching her topic from a victim mentality.  In fact, her life stands as a beacon of hope for poor, for single mothers, for ghetto-denizens, for drug abusers, and for welfare recipients.

Just a few paragraphs into the book, she makes it clear that this is not an apology for principles that America has championed.  The following excerpt gives a hint of what is to come: 

One of nine children, my mother learned as a “young’ un” that, more than anything else, poverty is a state of mind.  Her father showed her by example how to live free.  “Buy property and a gun” was his edict.  His faith and convictions told him free men have a right to own property and to protect it.

Ms. Parker hit right away on two fundamental issues that are needed for people to be truly free—property rights and the ability to preserve those property rights, by individual force, if necessary (AKA gun ownership rights). 

This early acknowledgement is a true indicator that Ms. Parker is neither a progressive/socialist/liberal, nor is she going to earn any points with the anti-gun lobby.

A short while later in the book, she reveals that she is not some soft-headed zealot—rather that she is taking a fact-based approach. 

"...in 2001, welfare spending in America exceeded $400 billion.  That is a whopping 14 percent of the federal budget.  That’s more than a billion tax dollars per day being spent on various poverty programs, yet Rector’s data shows that less than twenty cents of each dollar actually gets into the hands of the people society is trying to help."

While her affinity for citing facts is heartening, the facts she cites are hugely disruptive to the crowd that pushes the notion that government should be in the business of charity.  "... less than twenty cents of each dollar actually gets into the hands of the people society is trying to help." 

If your favorite charity publicized that 80 cents of every dollar you give goes into overhead, you would likely drop that charity and try to find one where less than 40 cents of each dollar contributed went to overhead.  However, with government, cost-effectiveness and the overhead expense ratio tend to get swept under the rug and taken out of consideration. Parker continues: 

"Despite growing evidence to the contrary, organizations such as the Center for Urban Policy Research continue to claim that racism, sexism, and capitalism are fundamentally responsible for the problems of the poor, but if true solutions are developed, these organizations could be obsolete.  Actually solve those problems, and half of the liberal campaign platform evaporates.  Self-interest will always be the driving force behind the machinery of politics. We need to admit that and move on."

 Wow!  "Self-interest will always be the driving force behind...politics."  Her unapologetic assault on the hypocrisy inherent in liberal politics is refreshing and clarifying.  The reality that if liberals implemented policies that resolved the causes of poverty they would be out of a job tears off the mask and reveals that liberal politics actually have the aim of preserving their political base—in other words, liberals want to be sure that we have lots of poor people around to vote for them.  If the poor actually rise out of poverty, they tend to walk away from supporting liberals.

So, when you see a wealthy capitalist like George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, or Warren Buffett espousing liberal politics, look closely and critically, and follow the money.  What do these folks have to gain from supporting liberal politicians?  The simple answer is that they create barriers to prevent others from rising to the level of wealth that they have obtained.  They are not interested in helping the poor.  They are interested in preserving the poor, and keeping them in their place.  That way, they have cheap labor and a ready pool of uncritical, unthinking voters.

Parker also isn't afraid to attack the phony altruism that liberals use to wrap up their oppressive and poverty sustaining policies: 

"The economically challenged are also the ones most negatively affected when the government involves itself in the affairs of business owners and their employees with legislation like minimum wage.  Mandates for a “livable wage” make great sound bites on the evening news, but the reality is that most new laws passed to regulate the business community to protect the economically challenged end up narrowing their opportunities to advance."

 "... most new laws...end up narrowing their opportunities to advance."  Again, this kind of attack on using altruistic sound bites to mask the real impact of legislation is enlightening.  It shows how liberals have mastered the use of emotion to overcome reason and true self-interest in their voting base of poor voters.

The frightening reality is that if the poor of this country would rationally examine the facts, they would run headlong toward the support of principles and proponents of Constitutional conservatism.  The Democrats, and to a lesser degree, the Republicans, would find themselves out in the cold as voters flocked to support politicians who implemented massive tax repeals and tax simplification, as well as promoting capitalism and free enterprise, both in the U.S. and abroad.  The result would be what happened when Ronald Reagan did exactly that, historically low unemployment and long-term sustained (and sustainable) increases in the standard of living for everyone, rich and "poor."  In other words, the poor would be much less poor and have much better lives, regardless of what happened to the wealthy.  The whole "soak the rich" class warfare ploys are just moves to destroy the rich—not to help the poor. 

"The only true beneficiary of minimum wage laws is the government, which collects more sales tax on the higher prices.  Higher prices mean higher taxes, and the struggling poor cannot understand why, although government demanded they get a raise, they have no more money left over than before.  It gets worse."

Note the points that her conversion to Christianity led her to the conclusion that she couldn't remain on welfare and be a good Christian.

Emphasize her points that the welfare system today combines euthanasia and slavery into one neat package.

Conclusions

Once you understand the circumstances, behavioral patterns, and choices of today’s poor, you will agree that the battle we face is so complex that it cannot be solved with one-size-fits-all government handouts to individuals or to organizations.

It also becomes evident that government, with its built-in disincentives to curing societal ills and its focus on attempting to manage the circumstances of the poor instead of helping them to help themselves, is the worst possible vehicle for attempting to solve the problems of poverty.

Government should get entirely out of the business of charity.  Helping the poor can be done most effectively by organizations that teach the poor how to help themselves and become self-sufficient, while giving them a helping hand to save themselves physically until they can stand on their own and become contributing members of society.

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.

Racial Supremacy: A Color-Blind Problem

Tom Sheppard

5/23/2019

IN today's Deseret News there is an "in-depth" article asking "Are white supremacist attacks and hate crimes getting enough attention from federal law enforcement?"  In addition to the primary question, the author, Matthew Brown, posits another question, "why racially motivated violence is on the rise?"  Tellingly, the author points out that "the steady climb in the number of hate crimes in America pre-dates the Trump administration."

The plain admission that this increase pre-dates the Trump administration should be enough to allow any reasonable person to set aside any prejudice (or bias) against our current POTUS and look beyond his administration for answers to the questions raised.

My thoughts on this went away from the question of attention from the Feds and instead focused on exploring why racially motivated violence is on the rise.  Because the article specifically points to white supremacy, I will share my thoughts on this with the backdrop of white supremacy rather than focusing on any non-white related hate crimes.

Racial Supremacy Comes in All Flavors

Let me begin by stating that I categorically reject racism and racial supremacy.  I find racism an abhorrent exercise in ignorance, prejudice, and hatred.  Let me also be clear that I utterly reject the notion, injected into some or our middle school textbooks, that racism is only about whites being prejudiced.  It may sound a bit crazy to say it, but racism is color blind, it is not a whites-only crime.  To put a point on it, in World War II, the Japanese believed they were "the superior race."  They disdained, and institutionally treated as less than human, the Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Vietnamese, whites, blacks, and anyone who was not Japanese.  In that regard they were both a perfect and ironic partner with the Nazis of Germany who believed in the superiority of the Aryan race.  The unrealized reality of World War II is that had the Axis won, they would have eventually, inevitably, gone to war against each other.  The racial imperatives of their respective platforms would have forced it to happen.

Closer to home, the preaching of the likes of Malcolm X, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Jeremiah Wright, are by any rational measure both anti-white and black supremacist.

Al Sharpton

Jeremiah Wright

Mainstream Media Promotes Racial Supremacy

Psychology has very well documented the "fight or flight" autonomic response people have to threats.  The simple reason for a rise in racially motivated crimes is a rise in racial supremacists of all colors.  Add to this the media barrage against white males which has been going on at least since the days when Carrol O'Connor put forward the ignorant bigot Archie Bunker as the epitome of the white working-class man and a rise in "white supremacy" is bound to follow.  The white supremacists are feeling threatened by legal, societal, and media actions which undermine the perceived foundations of their legitimacy and threaten their ability to be taken seriously and heard in the public square.  While many will flee this conflict, at least for a while, an increasing number will feel their backs are against the wall and will feel compelled to take a stand, perhaps even a violent stand, against those who seem to trying not simply to un-empower them, but to wage a war of extinction on them.

Racial Violence is a Reaction to Racial Supremacy

The reality is that racial and hate crimes will continue to rise as long as two things are happening.  1) As long as racism is institutionally supported and 2) while racial supremacists are being widely heard.

Because of the 1st Amendment we cannot deny racial supremacists their place in the public forum.  However, we can continue to combat institutionalized racism.  Right now, the majority of institutionalized racism exists in Hollywood.  Movies and television shows for at least the last twenty years have typically portrayed the straight, white, male (Archie Bunker) as everything from a mere buffoon to an evil villain. Favorable portrayals of straight, white, males in sitcoms on national TV was limited to Tim Allen's Last Man Standing, which the major networks cancelled regardless of its ratings.

When you couple unrelenting media bias against straight, white, males with the unvarnished willingness of the mainstream media to lend credibility to racial supremacists who are attacking whites and trying to invoke misguided notions of racial guilt and racial shame it should be no surprise that the result sometimes is violence.

All Racial Supremacy is Founded on Lies

The problem with all this racial supremacy is that it is all founded on falsehoods.  The reality is that brown, black, white, red, yellow, pink, or otherwise, we are all one race.  We are the human race.  Whatever genetic anomalies have occurred over the millennia which created the diversity of our skin colors has not created multiple versions of the human race.  So, if we want to feel superior, let's revel in the superiority of the human race, and quit stressing over our skin colors, hair colors, eye colors, etc.

To justify their enslavement of Africans, for a time Europeans promoted the notion that Africans were actually a species of ape.  They promoted the notion that Africans were not of the human race, but were a simian race.  Not only has science put that silly notion to rest, it was never more than an attempt to rationalize the treatment of fellow human beings in an inhumane way by pretending they weren't actually human.  Even today, to succeed, racial supremacists must demonize their opponents, changing them from human beings into some incarnation of evil or vile stupidity.

Just Say "No!"

So, the next time you see a TV show, or someone in front of a crowd (in person or on Facebook), calling those who disagree with them "evil", "idiots", "brainless", "stupid", etc. take a pause and realize that the speaker is trying to dehumanize those who disagree and by doing that is directly promoting the sort of unreasoning hatred and disdain that leads to both the crimes of racism and genocide.

The answer, however, is not to respond with equal vitriol and insults.  Rather, it is to make calm, rational, fact-based responses and to disengage when others clearly lose their hold on sanity and devolve into foul-language riddled rants which are aimed to incite emotion rather than citing fact and appealing to reason.  As I have said elsewhere, learn to disagree without being disagreeable.

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

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

 (c) Copyright 2019 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

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