NAZIs, Fascists, Socialists, Communists, and Capitalists, oh my!

Our headlines today are filled with pundits, commentators, influencers, and countless individuals accusing folks on the "other" side of being <fill in the blank with one or more of the following> {NAZIs, Fascists, Communists, etc.}. 

Often these terms are used so interchangeably, however, they are not truly interchangeable. Each is these -ists and -isms have distinct, although often overlapping, meanings. 

I have always felt that when you want to throw a label at someone else, if you don't really know what it means, then it shows the accuser's ignorance more than it reveals about the accused. So, let's jump into this.

NAZI

NAZI is an acronym. Translated from the original German it means National Socialist German Workers' Party or in German "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte" (Gunner, 2021). The term NAZI and fascist are often used interchangeably. This is because the NAZI party was both socialist and fascist, as well as nationalist. 

Socialist

Socialism is commonly used interchangeably with communism. According to ThoughtCo, "The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government." (Longley, 2024). In both of these -isms, the government is authoritarian and controlling everything. The primary distinction is the socialists let people "own" private property, but they still must use it only as the state dictates, and the state can revoke ownership at anytime. To me, this seems to be a mere pretense of private property ownership. 

The ThoughtCo article cited above (Longley, 2024) notes that socialism includes the notion that people receive according to their contribution, rather than simply according to their need. In that regard, socialism is less altruistic in its implementation.

Communist

In contrast, communism doesn't pretend that individuals own anything. Everything is owned by the state and administered by the oligarchs and the bureaucracy according to what they believe is in the best interests of the people, without regard to the opinions, feelings, or actual needs of those same people.

For me, socialism and communism are, in their effects, identical and interchangeable. Although, for years I have labored under the notion that communism was expressly aimed at forcibly imposing these principles on the entire in an egalitarian manner, not favoring one nation or ethnicity over another. Socialism, I was taught, was a bit more nationalistic in scope, which is consistent with the notions of Aryan supremacy that seems inextricably linked with Nazism. 

Fascist

Fascism is an authoritarian approach to governing which, although it allows personal property, the government maintains a shallow form of capitalism. They coopt businesses (personally owned enterprises) into arms of the government to carry out the regulations and laws. 

Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. (Soucy, 2024)

Pulling from the citation above allows me to create a list of attributes of fascism:

• Militaristic, 
• nationalistic, 
• contempt for democracy, 
• contempt for political liberalism, 
• contempt for cultural liberalism, 
• rule of the elites, 
• individual interest subordinated to the good of the nation 

To better understand this list requires some further elaboration and definition of these terms.

• Militarism - meaning a tendency to resort to organized violence using military and paramilitary groups to intimidate or eliminate opposition.
• Nationalism - the notion of one nation being superior to another. However, it is worth noting that the proponents of the United Nations and "one world government" are merely a different flavor of nationalism rather than being anti-nationalist.
• Contempt for democracy - Setting aside the distinctions nuances democracy, constitutionalism, and republicanism, and representative democracy leaves us with the term democracy as shorthand for respect for the sovereignty of individuals, and their deliberate acceptance of a social compact as the source of legitimate government. Contempt for democracy translates into contempt for the inalienable rights of individuals to govern themselves.
• Contempt for liberalism (political and cultural) - in this context, Britannica goes on to define liberalism as "protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual." (Minogue, 2024). Note that today's so-called "liberals" are markedly at odds with support for the freedom (AKA self-sovereignty) of the individual.
• Elitism - the rule of elites being the preferred approach of fascists of all stripes. Elites may qualify for this 'designation' either through their academic achievements, excessive wealth, political power, or celebrity. 
• Subordination of individual well-being to the "good of the nation" - Doing horrific things to individuals and minorities in the interest of promoting "the greater good," was the driving force behind Hitler's genocide against the Jews and has been used by tyrants, oligarchs, and conspirators to justify terrible crimes throughout history.

Capitalist

Unlike Socialism and Communism which combine both economic and political motives and means, capitalism is purely an economic philosophy. Capitalism is non-political in its definition. However, it does rely upon certain strongly political points.

Capitalism is fundamentally based on property rights and individual sovereignty. Drawing on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations concludes that capitalism is about two parties making an exchange of goods, services, or both, absent any coercion.  It is this point of coercion that brings capitalism into conflict  in various degrees by communism, socialism, and fascism.

To be totally candid, the issue of coercion brings capitalism into conflict with all political regimens beyond the realm of self-governance. This is the primary point made by "card-carrying" libertarians.

Conclusion

I believe that most people bandy around these terms, hurling them at those who disagree with them, with little understanding or regard for the actual definitions of these terms. I hope that folks will take a moment and consider what each of these terms means. Then compare the meanings against the actions and words of those they want to paint with these labels. If the "shoe fits," then by all means use it. But please, stop hurling these -ists and -isms without knowing what you are talking about.

References

Gunner, Jennifer. (9 September 2021). Nazi: Meaning and Origin of the Word. Retrieved from:  https://www.yourdictionary.com/articles/abbreviations-nazi-meaning-origin 

Longley, Robert. (5 May 2024). The Differences Between Socialism and Communism. Retrieved from: https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195448 

Soucy, Robert. (21 October 2024). Fascism. Britannica, retrieved from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism 

Minogue, Kenneth; Girvetz, Harry K. (5 September 2024). Liberalism. Britannica. Retrieved from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism 

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

Embracing Intolerance

Image (c) Lightsource and Depositphotos.com

                              This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

The Hypocrisy of Intolerant Liberals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Food for thought!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sanders Anti-Socialism and Stock Buy Backs Regulation

PHOTO: Associated Press

Tom Sheppard

2/16/2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learn more about Tom Sheppard at his Amazon Author Page:

https://www.amazon.com/Tom-Sheppard/e/B0073GEHIK

Get your own copy of Tom's blockbuster Godvernment today.

Trump is a Danger to Our Well Being

Trump is a Danger to Our Well-Being

Death Dealer (C) 1973 Frank Frazetta

Tom Sheppard

8/6/2017

A CNN headline came through my newsfeed today stating that Trump is a danger to our well-being.  This isn’t the first time I have seen similar editorials from CNN and other sources.

• On May 15 of this year CNN trumpeted, “Trump Again Reveals His Dangerous Incompetence”.  

• On June 28 CNN noted “Trump Putting Journalists in Danger.”

• On June 7, the Washington Examiner (washingtonexaminer.com) headline was “Trump’s  Decision on Paris Agreement Poses Great Danger.”

• July 5 and again on July 22 linked Trump to the concept of danger in two separate stories, one about his campaign against fake news and another worrying about his inaction.

• Slate, on August 10 linked Trump’s rhetoric with North Korea to danger for everyone.

• The Washington Post on July 22 referred to Trump as “a Unique Threat to American Democracy.”

And, the consistent linking of Trump to the concept of being a danger isn’t confined solely to US publications.  Das Spiegal (www.spiegel.de/international/) called Trump the most dangerous man in the world.  A piece reported by NPR on June 26 noted that a Pew Research poll of global respondents found a majority think trump is both arrogant and dangerous.

Trump’s critics have been consistently beating this drum that he is dangerous.

My response to all these alarums is this, “So, what's new?   The President of the US is always dangerous.”  The President of the United States (POTUS) has been the most dangerous man in the world since President Harry Truman ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.  Add to that, the POTUS has been the biggest single danger to the well-being of Americans since President George Washington.

The powers inherent in the Executive Branch of our government, as delineated both in the US Constitution, laws passed by Congress, and in the rulings of The US Supreme Court position POTUS to have significant impact on our well-being.  POTUS lawfully can:

• Sign treaties with the UN and other foreign powers which give away our Constitutional rights and “become the law of the land.”
• Initiate wars, as long as he doesn’t call them a war, or let them go on too long, as Commander in Chief of our armed forces.
• Throw people in jail or spy on them (DOJ, IRS, Homeland Security, Department of State).
• Direct the DOJ to enforce, or not to enforce, specific laws.
• Direct the IRS to collect, or not collect, particular taxes (for instance the “Individual Mandate” from ObamaCare).
• Create or eliminate regulations that affect almost every area of your life –
• Your lights, heat, air conditioning, stove, oven (DOE),
• your job (OSHA, Commerce Department, Department of Labor),
• your health (CDC, NIH, FDA, Health and Human Services),
• the environment and what you can do with the land you own (EPA),
• what you can say and where (FCC),
• what you can drive (EPA, FTA),
• where many people can live (HUD),
• what you can use to buy things (Treasury),
• what you should be learning in school (Department of Education),
• what crops you can grow and how you can care for them (USDA)
• and the list goes on, and on.

Beyond these clearly established avenues to change our lives, there is the avenue of executive orders which, deservedly, awaken fears of extra-Constitutional actions flowing from the White House into the lives of many.

Regardless of who is POTUS, that person is dangerous to our well-being, as well as the well-being of nearly everyone on this planet (a few exploding nukes could ruin all our lives for generations).

With a list that touches almost everything in your life, it is beyond my comprehension why anyone would approach a presidential election with the level of ignorance that is commonplace in the voting populace of this country. 

President Donald Trump is neither more, or less, dangerous than any president has been since Harry Truman, or even since George Washington.

What all the folks promoting fear of President Trump have in common is that they are all advocates of social agendas which are not aligned with the values promoted by our current POTUS.

When Barak Obama was POTUS, folks to the right of center were just as alarmed by the treaties, regulations and executive orders which he promoted.  If you don’t know this, then you have never been on the mailing list of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and you have filtered out of your news feed sources like Fox News, Breitbart and The Wall Street Journal.

The reason the headlines back then weren’t filled with the same volume of portentous alarms is because the mainstream media sources (MMS) are almost exclusively inclined toward the socialist political agenda of the left of center.  The unfortunate reality is the “watchdogs” of our republic are too busy eating the drugged meat of the socialist-leaning left to bark at the leftist encroachments on freedom and prosperity in the US.  They have been retrained, like a version of Pavlov’s dogs, to bark only when the bell of the right chimes in the public square.

If you reflexively, uncritically, accept the news presented by the “major” news outlets, you have become part of the problem with politics, conflict, and civil debate in the US.

President Trump is dangerous.  He has power at his fingertips which is almost incomprehensible.  He is especially dangerous to the socialist agenda, just as President Obama was dangerous to the agendas of Federalism and Constitutional Conservatist agendas.

If the agenda of POTUS aligns with your own politics, then you will likely welcome his exercise of power to limit the actions of your opponents and increase the efficacy of the actions of your own faction.

The good news for everyone is that the checks and balances built into our government by the framers of the US Constitution are still functioning pretty well, in spite of many attempts by partisans of the left, center and right to cripple or kill them.  Every time I see these checks and balances in action (even when they don’t land in my favor), I thank God for the far-reaching genius of those men.

It is my greatest hope that the recent fear that has ripped through those who find Trump dangerous, will inspire those who feel it to do all in their power, today and tomorrow, to support and strengthen the reliance of our republic on the US Constitution, and help to limit the powers of government to be restricted solely to those specific areas delineated by the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and lawfully adopted amendments to the US Constitution.

The beauty of the US Constitution and the system of government we have built on that, is that it protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority as well as protecting the majority from the tyranny of the minority.

I also hope this unending “crisis”, manufactured by those who oppose the current POTUS, will inspire the members of the “fourth estate” to retreat from advocating any and all political agendas which have the effect (or objective) of disabling the checks and balances built into our government.

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

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

(c) Copyright 2017 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

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

Learn more about Tom Sheppard at his Amazon Author Page:

https://www.amazon.com/Tom-Sheppard/e/B0073GEHIK

Get your own copy of Tom's blockbuster Godvernment today.

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.

Back to School: Kill the Department of Education

Government Education – Many people do not realize that the takeover, makeover, and destruction of the locally controlled public school system has been an agenda item of Communists, Socialists, Fascists and other Liberal-Progressives at least since the days of President Woodrow Wilson. 

As the President of Princeton University, Wilson said, “Our problem is not merely to help the students to adjust themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.” 

The objective of these people is to brain-wash our children to think they way these elitists want them to think. To make this happen, they have steadily destroyed the concept and application of community-controlled schools and curricula, substituting centralized control over content and execution. In response, may have adopted home-schooling, a right which I defend. 

However, I believe that rejecting the “benefits” of centralized control and returning control of schools to local communities will result in students who learn how to think critically and how to read and write and do math, and will stem the tide of illiterate high-school graduates who think about things the way the state wants them to think.

Never forget that one of the primary ways masters have always kept control of their slaves is to limit the content and opportunity for education. The centralized control of the administration, curricula and funding of our public schools is a primary tool of those who do not want individual families and communities to pass on to our children our own values. They would rather teach our children what they want them to know and to believe.

1. Return control of schools to local communities. School boards should exist for each local community with the appropriate powers for raising funds, establishing curricula, hiring and firing of administrators and teachers, etc. These local boards should act under the supervision and authority of local elected officials such as Mayors, Town Councils, etc. The County Board of Education should be limited in its authority to schools that are not under any locally elected government oversight and should derive its authority from the County Commission. This will make local school management responsive to the needs, desires, and abilities of the local community.

2. Mandates from the State Board of Education and the Federal Department of Education should be resisted as a matter of course as unconstitutional usurpation of the rights of the citizens. The Constitution does not grant the right to management of education to the Federal Government, therefore the state and county have no basis in law for compliance with mandates from the Department of Education. If the State Constitution does not explicitly grant the State the right to manage education at the county and municipal level, then it too should be routinely rejected.

Mark Levin notes that some things should be added to the curricula:

“Encourage the creation of curricula that will educate young people about the intergenerational trap the [Welfare-State] has laid for them – which will steal their liberty, labor, opportunities, and wealth – thereby building a future electoral force for whom the elixir of entitlements is understood as poisonous snake oil.”

I agree and I propose further that we should:

3. Eliminate from curricula teachings designed to promote politically motivated concepts that are not based on the appropriate application of the scientific method. These politically motivated concepts include “global warming” and “man-made-climate-change.” Until a scientific theory has been demonstrated to be based on rigorous application of the scientific method, it should be taught in colleges as theory, rather than in elementary and secondary schools as fact.

Relevant Links to this Article:

• The School Revolution: A New Answer for Our Broken Education System, Presidential Candidate Ron Paul offers his prescription for fixing our educational system.
• Is College Worth It?: A Former United States Secretary of Education and a Liberal Arts Graduate Expose the Broken Promise of Higher Education, Former Secretary of Education William Bennett tackles a problem in higher education.
• The Global Auction: The Broken Promises of Education, Jobs, and Incomes, Authors Philip Brown and Hugh Lauder offer a timely expose about how the promise of education as a path for success is failing us.

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.