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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what is happening here?

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

ONE Really Bad Thing Happening Here

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

US Constitution, Article II Section 2, emphasis added

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

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

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

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

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

Article VI, US Constitution, emphasis added

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

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

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

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

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

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

TWO - Really, Really Bad Things Happening Here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article VI, US Constitution, emphasis added

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

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

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

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

 something that I can do."

Edward Everett Hale

1) Share this information with everyone you can.

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

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

     A.    Write them letters.

     B.     Send them emails.

     C.     Send them faxes.

     D.    Phone their offices.

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

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

     A.    Write them letters.

     B.     Send them emails.

     C.     Send them faxes.

     D.    Phone their offices.

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

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

     B.     Send them emails.

     C.     Send them faxes.

     D.    Phone their offices.

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

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

Related Link to this Article:

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

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

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

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

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

Congress Sells Us Out to Iran, UN and Others

Congress Just Gave Up Our Constitutional Rights to the World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear XXXXXXXXX: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Richard Hudson Member of Congress

Related Link to this Article:

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

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

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

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

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

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.

Worshipping Government

So many now put their faith in government rather than God, they should call it Godvernment rather than government.  They worship the power of men and believe that humankind is capable of solving all their own ills by their own abilities.  They have abandoned faith in God in favor of faith in man.

I find it interesting, and informative, that many people today have a view and understanding on the freedom of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment that is completely at odds with the understanding and intent that the Founding Fathers had when they wrote this up.

Bear with me  moment and I will show how this relates to Godvernment.

Most governments in the world in 1776 embraced a state-sanctioned religion/church.  Contrary the understanding of many today, the church did not control the government.  Actually, the government used the church as an arm of government to achieve its ends.  Karl Marx called religion the opiate of the masses because that is exactly how governments used religion/church.  

In 1776, if you rebelled against your government, just like today, the worst they could do was kill you (and everyone you care about).  However, in most countries government worked hand in glove with the church so the interests of clergy and the interests of kings were aligned.  So, when you rebelled against the government, instead of just risking death, you were also risking eternal damnation, and that was the sermon even if you might win.  So, god-fearing people also had to be government-fearing people, because if you crossed one, you crossed the other.

When the Founding Fathers debutted the US Constitution in 1787, they took great pains to decouple church and state - because they knew that allowing the state meddle with the church was always going to produce bad outcomes. That is why they said, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"   

When you look at the actual words (going to the source) instead of reading a wikipedia entry that supposedly tells you what it means, you can clearly see that the amendment was designed to keep the dirty paws of government from restraining the exercise of religion.  They were prohibited from both picking a favorite (to twist to their liking) and from interfering with those they didn't like.

Many refer to this as the "Estalishment Clause" and use it to erect a wall that prevents any religion from affecting the workings of government (instead of the original intent of keeping government from affecting the workings of religion).  What they selectively ignore, lately, is the next phrase which I choose to call the "Free Exercise Clause."

Regardless of the constitutionality of (or lack thereof) these actions, the effect has been to drive religion from the public square and attempt to confine its influence to a few hours of meaningless activity each week. 

I say "meaningless activity" becuase when our religion no longer shapes our daily conduct, when it is utterly satisfied through a few moments of ritual in a day or week, then it is meaningless.  It no longer has any real meaning or influence in our lives.

So the Establishment Clause has been used as a bludgeon to drive religion out of government, both communal and individual.  

They say that nature abhors a vacuum. I don't know if that is true.  But I do know that human nature abhors a power vacuum.  For those who feel unable, unwilling, or too uninformed to govern themselves according to firm and enduring principles, the absence of religion to govern their inner lives is an abhorrent vacuum which must be filled.  And once religion is driven from the public square the only institution left standing is government.

And government, without the spiritual guidance of religion is nothing more or less than one group of people making up rules (and changing them according to the latest whim of human desires or knowledge) and enforcing the obedience of everyone else.

If people actively and consciously recognized that this is the nature of government today, and they realized that our "rulers" are just as stupid, greedy, short-sighted, and self-serving as every other human being is, they would not long tolerate such a system.

In order to prevent having a massive revolt stemming from the inherently flawed nature of human government, especially one that has severed its connections to any divine guidance, it is necessary for pro-government forces to begin to replace the worship of god with the worship of government.

This may sound far-fetched, but please take a moment to consider this, faith is needed for the functioning of both government and religion.

God and Governments Both Need the Faith of the People to Operate:

Faith is belief is something that is unseen.  

Faith is essential for the worship of God, because with our eyes we cannot see the hand of god working in our lives we must exercise faith.  We put our trust in god that he will protect us, wipe away our sorrows, punish all wrongdoers, and eventually bring us to a state of paradise and unending happiness.  The fundamental requirement of faith is expressly acknowledged in all religions.

Government likewise needs our faith to operate.  

• If we don't have faith in the government currency, the economy will collapse, perhaps reverting to a barter economy and the governments powers of taxation to fund its operations will evaporate.
• If we don't have faith that our vote actually influences the outcome of elections, we stop voting.  When everyone stops voting, the legitimate electoral process collapses and all that is left is the illegitimate process where ballot boxes are stuffed and what we now call voter fraud becomes the norm.
• If we don't have faith that government programs can cure society ills, then we will pressure our elected officials to de-fund those programs.  And if they are unresponsive to our views, eventually, we will remove them from office by electing someone we believe (have faith in) will act according to our views.

Government social programs exist because people have become convinced that we can solve our own societal ills using only our own pooled resources, without the influence or support of God.  We are replacing God with Government and worshiping at the altar of the godlike power of the collective human animal i.e., Godvernment.

I believe that man is created in the image of God and that we are capable, individually and collectively, of many great and good things.  And God expects us to do much, all we can, with what He has given us.  But, there are two things we should never forget. First, whatever we accomplish is done with wit and intelligence that He gave us.  We should always acknowledge on whose shoulders we stand.  Second, there is nothing we can do by way of action or argument that has the ability to change the nature and heart of humankind.  It has remained unchanged for 6,000 years of recorded human history, with the only notable exceptions being societies which wholly embraced and individually lived the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The reward those societies reaped included intense persecution, where armies marched to destroy them.  Until ultimately they were so rejected by the world and perfected by their living, that they were caught up into heaven, or destroyed by the wicked.

I am speaking of the society of the City of Enoch, and after it the City of Salem.  Both of which reputedly became so righteous that God snatched them up off the face of the earth and brought them to where he dwells.  They achieved this end by individually embracing the influence and rule of God in their own lives and acting according to the principles which they knew to be correct.  As individuals and as a society they were rejected by the broader world, which preferred to pretend to be smarter and better than God at helping humanity to overcome its flaws.

Godvernment is the modern equivalent of the Tower of Babel.  

The Confusion of Tongues by Gustave Dore' (1865)

The book of Genesis in the Bible tells of how, when humanity had no barriers of language to separate them, they decided to pool their collective resources and demonstrate that they were better at helping humanity overcome its flaws than God was, and they would prove this by building a tower that was tall enough that:

1. God couldn't destroy it and 
2. it would reach into God's habitation and allow them to:

  a) invade and
  b) dethrone Him, so that
  c) humanity could rule itself.

Today, our Tower of Babel is government.  Too many people erroneously believe that we can pool our collective resources through the coercion of government and cure humanity's flaws through a government program or collection of government programs (or laws).  One very major step in this effort is to dethrone God so that a 100% human-led Government can stand supreme in the world.  Without the need to acknowledge or accede to any wisdom higher than that of the collective, or of the smartest member(s) of the collective, Godvernment can pretend to have the powers of God - the ability to fundamentally change human nature to make us better.

God wants us to be good people.  

Godvernment wants us to be good people.

God's definition of what "good" means does not vary over time and is not swayed by popular opinion.  He knows what we must do to succeed at become good, he reveals that, and he encourages us to obey, but does not force us.

Godvernment's definition of what "good" means changes with public opinion, scientific discovery, and whatever suits those in power to enable them to do what they want.  Godvernment does not actually "know" anything.  The individuals involved can guess, persuade, and experiment, but they only know what they can discover.  And they use the compelling power of government laws and law enforcement to force us to behave in the ways that they define (today) as good.

God allowed the people to build the Tower of Babel for a while.  He knew that they would not attain any of their objectives, regardless of what he did.  The tower would never reach to where He dwells.  If they were able to attempt to dethrone Him by force, His power and intelligence alone was more than all their collective power and intelligence.  He also knew that their desire to exile Him and rule themselves would only produce despotism and cruelty and would never cure the ills of humanity.

The reality is that each of us can exile God from ruling our lives.  We don't need a Tower of Babel or Godvernment to achieve that end.  There is no collective effort necessary.  We exile Him from our lives by choosing to ignore Him.  When we do that, we inevitably and unavoidably replace our worship of God with something else.  Either we worship something outside ourselves, such as nature, or smart people, or we worship ourselves and sit ourselves upon God's throne, imagining that we are the master of our own fate.

Just like those who built the Tower of Babel before us, Godvernment, humanity-worship, nature worship and self-worship will all come crashing down and end in utter failure and disillusionment.

God confounded the builders of the Tower of Babel by mixing up their languages and making it much harder for them to collaborate (like any good general, his first move was to sever their lines of communication).  This caused them to flee in confusion and cease trying to build their tower into heaven.  Later, he destroyed the actual tower itself with earthquakes.

At a stroke, he unmasked the folly and hubris of humanity and their leaders.  They thought they could outsmart and overpower God.  They had no realistic idea of the extent of the abilities of their avowed enemy.  They suffered humiliation and defeat, and later misery as warfare became rampant when people with different languages made war on each other.

Godvernment too will one day loom in the history books as a cautionary tale of the hubris of humanity.  It will end at a stroke from God, whom they have declared is their enemy.  They direction and form of that stroke will be utterly unforeseen by the lackeys and worshipers of Godvernment, because they have no realistic idea of the extent of the abilities of their sworn enemy.

Until the day when God acts to confound this modern Tower of Babel, those who put their faith in God instead of man need do what they can to resist this folly:

Defend the Throne of God against usurpers

1. Vote against government social programs, regardless of how humane they sound.  People will never change human nature.  Only God can do that.  And one way He does that is through VOLUNTARY programs to help the poor and needy, not through force (which is the Godvernment way).
2. Support (work on their campaigns, talk favorably to friends about them, give money to fund their campaigns, and vote for) people for public office (local, state and federal candidates) who seem to want to take us away from government run social programs.
3. Actively work in your church or synagogue.  Make sure that your religion is not meaningless.  Make it more that a meaningless ritual once a week.  Work to implement the principles of your religion in your daily life so that it transforms your personal conduct.
4. Strengthen others in their desires to let God direct their lives, but try to force them to believe the same as you.

Search Results Related to This Article:

• Babel - a Brad Pitt movie, rated "R".
• The Abolition of Man - a book by CS Lewis points out both the trend and the outcomes of replacing the worship of God with the worship of man.
• The Constitution of Religious Freedom: God, Politics, and the First Amendment - Dennis Goldford directs his readers to consider the First Amendment. The founding fathers' words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
• The Reason Revolution: Atheism, Secular Humanism, and the Collapse of Religion - a free Kindle ebook, written by a secular humanist purporting to refute the foundations of religion.
• Lectures on Faith - an inexpensive book containing a collection of lectures explaining the origins, basis, and results of faith by the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Written circa 1830.
• Freedom from Religion - a book by Noel McGivern that bills itself as a guide for defending non-belief.

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.

There is No God

Michaelangelo's depiction of the creation of Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel circa 1512

There is no god.

That is a message we often hear. And another which is a bit more subtle, but which has the same effect, "All gods are the same." This last assertion, of the equivalency of all religions should be very familiar to those who have read C. S. Lewis' books, The Chronicles of Narnia, specifically the book The Last Battle.

In that book, the cat Ginger promotes the belief in Tashlan - an amalgamation of the evil diety Tash and the good diety Aslan.  Ginger teaches that Aslan and Tash are the same. Many characters in the book prefer to embrace this easier path and much mischief, destruction and unhappiness results.  It is the central conflict of the book, and in case you haven't read it, I won't spoil the ending for you.

But you and I are living in a different book. We are living in the Book of Life.  And, like our own lives, this book has a beginning, a middle, and most ominously, an end.  And, like any compelling story, our lives, individually and collectively involve an unavoidable conflict.

In Lewis' The Last Battle, the conflict was the choice between Tash and Aslan.  Ginger, by promoting the conflation of Tash and Aslan was presenting a false choice that appeared to be no choice.

Today, we hear three main voices on the topic of religion.  I will tackle each of these separately here, because each is an important argument that each person needs to confront as part of being a responsible adult human being.

1) God does not exist.  Religion is the opiate of the masses and guilty of causing most human suffering throughout history.

2) All religions are the same.  Whatever way you choose to worship god is fine.  The important thing is to live a life that reflects the religious values that are common to nearly all religions - caring for the poor, providing for your family, being kind to others.

3) There is only one true religion, and if you reject that one true religion, then there are unpleasant consequences which will eventually and unavoidably come to you.

I will address each of these in the order above.

1) God Does Not Exist 

- This argument is extremely prevalent, perhaps for the first time in human history.  It has gained ground steadily under two influences: 

A) Communism explicitly embraces the notion that God does not exist and that religion is used by the powers of the world to maintain their hold over the masses by conflating their eternal salvation with support for the government which holds them in thrall.  

B) Intellectualism - this is the conceit of the educated.  They get a bit more knowledge than the average person, be that through science or the arts, and they come to the conclusion that diety is a concept that was invented by humankind to  explain with superstitious stories the world around them which they, at the time, lacked the knowledge to explain and understand. 

Both Communism and Intellectualism reject the concept of the existence of intelligent beings whose powers, knowledge and abilities are incomprehensibly far beyond our own, and who are related to us and seeking to help us.  At best, they will lump this into the realms of science fiction and fantasy novels.  At worst, they utterly embrace the double conceit that humankind is the pinnacle of evolution, not only on this planet, but in the entire universe and that if humankind cannot attain something through their own powers, then it does not exist.

Here is the most pernicious outcome of the notion that god does not exist - it is that humankind is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, good and evil.  Whatever conclusions about those things humanity reaches, must be right, because we are collectively too smart to be all wrong together.

One symptom (and cause of this) is that today, we see an educational system in this country that is being perverted from one that teaches people how to use their powers of reasoning and experimentation to examine facts and come to their own conclusions, into a generation of people who are educated to see everything through the biased lenses of a set of socially acceptable opinions that are purveyed as facts.  

Unfortunately, when people cease to believe in diety, then they cease to believe that one day they will be held accountable for all their actions in this life.  All religions have this in common - the notion that after we leave this life, diety will judge us and reward us according to our obedience to the things we were taught that were right.  If god does not exist, then there is no final accountability where we are measured against an absolute and unyielding yardstick.

This denial of diety and the consequent judgement is extremely liberating to the minds of many.  It frees them up to be as fiendish as they desire while allowing them to utterly ignore either conventional notions of good and evil or the nagging voice of conscience that tries to dissuade them from their destructive and prideful path.  Eventually, they are able to utterly silence the voice of conscience, and they take this withdrawal of the voice of god in their lives as conclusive evidence that they were right in their notion that god does not exist and what is right is whatever they can get away with.

In a world without god, might makes right.  Whether that is the might of majority opinion, or the might of superior firepower.

2) All Religions Are The Same 

- I won't spend a whole lot of time in this space, because of one important reason, the bottom line of this notion is this:  If all relgions are the same, then they are the same as no religion.  Which means that whatever path you decide is right, is right.  This, in the end, is the same as saying There is No God.

The most vile aspect of this notion is the moral equivalency it makes between groups like ISIS who are killing and torturing all who they define as sinners and every other religious organization in the world, including the Dalai Lama, the Pope, and your local priest or minister.  So, whether the religion teaches tolerance and peace, or violent destruction of dissenters, they are all morally the same.

When President Obama makes public arguments equating the Christian Crusaders of the Middle Ages with  ISIS, his argument does not highlight the horror of savage intolerance, rather it seeks to undermine any moral argument that Christianity is different than Islam.  His argument promotes the notion of moral equivalency and instead of increasing the strength or moral and religious arguments against the likes of ISIS, it destroys the foundation for outrage against any outrageous conduct by any person or group.

The Lion Monument or Löwendenkmal, a striking rock sculpture dedicated to the fallen Swiss mercenaries who served under France's notorious King Louis XVI. Narnia fans might find it familiar as it evokes the dying Aslan on the stone table.

3) There is Only One True Religion 

- When I hit on this topic, I know, without question, that I will offend many.  Unfortunately for them, many of those who will be offended, if they critically examine their beliefs will find that they have been lulled into the moral equivalency camp and they have replaced their belief in God with a belief that all ways are right.  

Fortunately for me, I am on very firm ground when I assert that there is only one true religion.  I am on firm ground because Jesus Christ said it long before I did.  He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life.  No man cometh unto the Father but by me" (John 14:6).  Jesus did not leave room for ambiguity in his assertion.  And, he was teaching obedience to the god of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses.

Image courtesy of GivingPraise.com

Contrary to what Islam preaches, he did proclaim himself as the Son of God, numerous times and placed himself above Abraham.  When he did this in Nazareth, they immediately tried to kill him for speaking what they thought was blasphemy (see John 8:58).

In case I am not being clear enough here, I will state it so plainly that it cannot be misunderstood: Christianity is the only religion on earth that is true.  All other religions have some pieces of the truth and have some value, but they are not pointing people toward the one god that actually exists.

And, before anyone can mock this assertion because of the proliferation of Christian churches, let me stat clearly that there is only one Christian church which is true, in that it possess both the correct teachings and the authority from God to carry out ordinances on earth, such as baptism, that are as binding on God as they are on man.

There is truly, as was stated by Paul, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Ephesians 4:5). And one religion.  And, it is not one from many, as most Protestant Christian churches preach. Rather, there is only one that contains the binding authority that Christ gave to the Apostle Peter when he told him, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 18:18)

God does exist. And, we know of His existence, not as the intellectualist says because we made it up, rather, we know of His existence, his attributes, his purposes, and our relationship to Him because He revealed Himself, again and again.  He did not leave us here to fend for ourselves and to labor in ignorance.

He showed himself to Adam and Eve and taught them. And He did not leave it at that. He revealed Himself to Enoch and to Noah. And later to Abraham and Jacob.  Then to Moses and Joshua.  And when God sent His own Son to teach His children, they killed him as they did the prophets before him.

But even after the death of Jesus Christ, God revealed himself to the Apostles and many others.  But those witnesses too were killed by those who didn't want to accept the idea that there was only one true religion, one true church, and it wasn't theirs. 

In our days, God again revealed Himself and immediately dispelled the many mistaken notions that had arisen around His nature, purposes, and ways.  And, like those messengers who were rejected in times past, this messenger too was attacked and eventually killed when the message he preached said, again, that there is one true religion, one true church, and it wasn't one of those in power at the time.

I know that my statements here will anger or offend many, but again, let me say that I am only repeating what God Himself has said:

"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually--"

Doctrine and Covenants 1:30 (emphasis added)

God said it. I cannot argue against it or ameliorate it without turning away from what He has said.  That being said, I also know that under God's plan, no one who lives to any degree in accordance with His doctrines will be shorted in their reward when life is done, whether or not they knew they were His doctrines and principles.  So, it behooves all humankind to live with the sure knowledge that when life is over we will be held accountable for all our deeds in this life by a power far greater than we can comprehend.

In counter to the three points at the start of this article, to conclude this article let me offer three counterpoints:

1) God is real.

2) Moral equivalence is not just wrong, it is evil and destructive.

3) There is one true religion which has been revealed and which can be verified using only the means and methods God has revealed.

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.

Benefits for Freedom

(c) Copyright 2015 Despair.com

Today, many people are signing up for lots of government benefits.  And our leaders in Washington, both those on Capitol Hill and in the White House, keep lining up bills to protect us from threats that are both real and imagined, and along with each protection comes a list of things that ordinary Americans can no longer do without breaking the law.

I call this exchange of government benefits for our freedoms, Esau's Bargain.  This is based on an event that is described in The Old Testament.

Esau Selling His Birthright by Matthias Stom, 17th Century

 ... Esau came from the field, and he was faint: And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint... 

     And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. 

     And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?    And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. 

    Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

Genesis 25:29-34

Later on, when Isaac, Esau and Jacob's dad, wanted to give his son's a blessing all this came back on Esau and he got pretty angry about it.  So angry, that Jacob had to leave home for quite a few years before his brother Esau cooled down about it.

So, what Esau despised when he was hungry, he valued later on.  But, then it was too late.  The deal was done, and he could not reclaim his birthright.

Today, we are giving up our birthright as Americans, the freedoms we enjoy under the Constitution, in exchange of a big bowl of government sponsored benefits soup, just like Esau did.  And as each freedom is taken, we are not likely to be able to get it back, just like Esau.

I could point to all the body searches we now go through just to take a flight today, but as intrusive as that is, it won't be going away anytime soon.  Since Esau didn't ask to borrow Jacob's sword, let's look at the bowl of soup instead.

Obamacare - quaintly called The Affordable Care Act is one of the biggest exchanges of benefits for freedom in the history of our country - so far.

A few years ago, if you were young and healthy and didn't feel the need to buy health insurance, that was your choice.  Starting this year, the government will be getting reports from all the insurance companies listing who are their customers.  The IRS will cross-check those lists with tax returns.  If they find a taxpayer who doesn't have health insurance, they will impose a fine on that taxpayer.

Last year, the fine was pretty trivial and it was only levied on those who didn't have insurance and told the government the truth.  This year, the fine gets a lot more severe, and Uncle Obama has a way to see if you are lying.

A few years ago, if you didn't need or want maternity insurance - which was generally only purchased by folks who were planning to have a baby, you didn't have to get it.  Considering the fact that a huge segment of our population today is made up of Baby Boomers, thousands of whom reach retirement age each day, there are a lot of folks who aren't going to have any more babies.  And yet, we all get to pay for Maternity Coverage, because those are the rules imposed on us by our people in Washington.

To be very blunt, the whole case for health insurance is totally messed up.  I would use stronger language, but I try not to use foul language.

The first problem with health insurance is that most people totally misuse it. And, that makes the costs for insurance to shoot through the roof.

Insurance companies are better than the best professional gamblers.  They hire super mathematicians called actuaries to sit around all day and calculate the odds for and against them having to pay a claim for any given condition, disease or event.  If the actuaries do their job right, and they do, the insurance company takes in more money in premiums than they pay out in claims.  A little known fact is that those insurance companies then invest the difference between what they pay out and what they take in and they make money on their money.  That is how they stay in business.

Ordinary people have totally screwed up health insurance, because instead of using it as a safety net against some really big, bad event, they have used it like a Christmas Club.

You may (or may not) remember the Christmas Club your bank or credit union used to offer.  The idea is simple.  In January, you figure out how much you are going to spend at Christmas and then each month you deposit one twelfth of that amount into a special savings account.  Then, when Christmas time comes, you close out your special Christmas Club account and spend your money.

This is what people have unwittingly been doing with their health insurance.

Remember what I told you about what actuaries do?  If the bank were using actuaries to see what money they could make on Christmas Club accounts the actuaries would tell the bank that the odds that the Christmas Club accounts will survive beyond a year are something only slightly higher than zero.  This means that the bank cannot afford to put that money into a loan to some customer unless the loan will be repaid before the Christmas Club account is cashed out.

Let's go back to Maternity Coverage again.

People who buy Maternity Coverage are usually planning to have a baby.  Actuaries know this, so the odds the insurance company will have to pay a claim to someone who takes out the coverage is pretty close to 100%.  It is only reduced by the probabilities (which the actuaries will calculate) that a person cannot have a baby, or dies before they have a baby.

What this means to the insurance company is that they have to charge more in premiums than they believe they will have to pay out in Maternity  Coverage claims.  So, what you get when you buy Maternity Coverage is a Christmas Club, with a surcharge (because the insurance company still has to pay it's people and make some profit, even after they pay out your claim).  With this Christmas Club, you pay in for about a year and at the end of that time, if all goes according to your plan, you get to come home from the hospital with a baby and without a big hospital bill to go along with it.

Of course, instead of paying the surcharge to the insurance company, you could have found out what it would cost for the doctor and hospital for a delivery, divided that figure up by at least 9 months, and then opened a savings account where you deposited that money each month.

Then, in about a year, you could come home from the hospital with a new baby and no big hospital bill, because you had the money to pay in cash (and it is less than what the insurance company would have been forced to charge you).

But, what if something goes terribly wrong?  THAT IS WHAT INSURANCE IS FOR!

At the same time that you are putting aside money each month, you should also be buying a Major Medical insurance policy.  These policies will pay your medical bills if something unexpected happens.

Those crafty actuaries calculate the odds that something will go wrong, and tell the insurance company how much they need to get to hedge their bets.  And they are betting that nothing major will go wrong - and most of the time they are right.  Because they are right most of the time, the insurance company makes money and can keep offering major medical insurance policies.

I could show you how this same thing applies to dental insurance and vision plans as it does to Maternity Coverage.  But, the chances are if you haven't gotten my point by now, you won't.

And here is point #1 - the whole scare about the spiraling costs of health insurance is a manufactured crisis that has its origins in people being ignorant about how they use their health insurance.  Yet, this was one of the main drivers the folks in power used to convince folks that forced insurance (socialized medicine) was a good idea.  Never mind the fact that it pretty much stinks everywhere it has been implemented.  Its only fans tend to be the politicians who put it in place and the bureaucrats who make their livings running it.  Even the doctors and nurses hate it.

Point #2 - those in power want more power.  Some of them want it because they think they are so much smarter than everyone else that they have an obligation to protect us from our own foolish actions.  They take away our freedom of choice for our own good.  Unfortunately, that has several really bad consequences.

A) People who are temporarily saved from the consequences of their own actions begin to believe that there are no consequences for bad choices, and so they make more bad choices.

B) People who get power by helping others avoid the consequences of their actions get reinforcement that they are doing something good when they look at all the bad consequences they have helped people avoid.

C) Bad consequences are eventually going to happen, no matter what.  And the natural law called the Conservation of Energy says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - this ensures that when the bad consequences finally do happen, they will be really big, because they will contain the built up energy from all the consequences from bad choices that were temporarily avoided by some government program.  And when that stuff finally hits the fan the people who have been trained to make poor choices are going to blame the people in power for the pain they are feeling for the consequences of their actions and they are going to be very hurt, very angry, and a whole lot of people.

And when "C" finally happens, there will very likely literally be blood in the streets, only it will be on a scale that will make the riots in LA and Ferguson look like a Sunday picnic.

It is because I want to avoid that really bad pile of consequences that I am urging people now to make good choices and choose to defend our constitutional rights in every way we can and on every front.  Don't surrender your freedom for a bowl of government benefits soup.

By the way, if you think I am making all this insurance crap up, I'm not.  I have spent many years working in the insurance business.  Or, if you don't believe me, call up your insurance agent and ask him if I am giving you the straight scoop.  If he's honest, s/he will tell you what I just did.

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.