Should all Humans be Equal?

Use this forum to discuss the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 5105
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GE Morton wrote: December 9th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: December 9th, 2021, 6:38 am
Those that detract, rather predictably insist that we are no born equal in that we vary in size, capacity, strength, gender, race, and a whole host of other ways. And so equality is impossible.

I submit that the detractors argument is hopeless and empty. headed.
But is it false? You don't refute it with pejoratives and name-calling.
Methink you do protect too mcuh.
"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal". Do the nay sayers think that the people that signed that statement were idiots? That they had not noticed that people are different?
I submit that the highest aims and motives to provide all persons with an equal chance at life were formulated on the day of the signing, and that this initial aim, a basis to the creation of an entire nation has never seriously been implimented.
Well, your "submission" there is quite mistaken. Jefferson's statement had nothing whatever to do with "providing all persons with an equal chance at life," in the sense of equal opportunities to prosper. Jefferson, and every other classical liberal philosopher of that era, were far too smart to have entertained such an absurd notion. The statement merely means that all persons have equal status as moral agents, and equally entitled to live their lives as they choose; i.e., to pursue happiness as they conceive it, without interference from other people. He amplified upon that in his First Inaugural Address:

" . . . with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
Wrong.

Which shall restrain men from injuring one another. NOT to "provide everyone with equal chances at life."
GE Morton
Posts: 3702
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by GE Morton »

LuckyR wrote: December 10th, 2021, 3:08 am
No suprise you're searching (with marginal to no success, btw) to find a "big difference" between discrimination and reverse discrimination (the majority of universities who attempted to practice it were private). Let me point out the "big difference" for you: the majority benefits from discrimination and minorities benefit from reverse discrimination.
I have no problem with "reverse discrimination" practiced by private institutions. In a free country they can set any admission criteria they wish.
After all the government doesn't practice anything, it's individuals who work in government, right? Just like the individuals who practice discrimination.
It is the individuals who work in government, and only those individuals, who are bound by the Constitution.
Ecurb
Posts: 1584
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: December 9th, 2021, 11:27 pm

Well, your "submission" there is quite mistaken. Jefferson's statement had nothing whatever to do with "providing all persons with an equal chance at life," in the sense of equal opportunities to prosper. Jefferson, and every other classical liberal philosopher of that era, were far too smart to have entertained such an absurd notion. The statement merely means that all persons have equal status as moral agents, and equally entitled to live their lives as they choose; i.e., to pursue happiness as they conceive it, without interference from other people. He amplified upon that in his First Inaugural Address:

" . . . with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau1.asp

Which shall restrain men from injuring one another. NOT to "provide everyone with equal chances at life."
Does enslaving other people constitute an "injury" to them? Shouldn't the government restrain men from enslaving other people? How about rape? Does that constitute an "injury"?

Which speaks more clearly about Thomas Jefferson's ideals -- his political speeches, or his actions? Jefferson clearly believed in neither economic equality, nor equality of opportunity, nor the "liberty" or "pursuit of happiness" mentioned in the Declaration.
GE Morton
Posts: 3702
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: December 10th, 2021, 12:32 pm
Which speaks more clearly about Thomas Jefferson's ideals -- his political speeches, or his actions?
Oh, my. Another witless hitchhiker riding the "cancel culture" bandwagon.

I assume you're alluding to the fact that Jefferson owned slaves. Yes he did; they were bequeathed to him as part of the estate he inherited from his father. Yet he opposed slavery his entire life, in public speeches, written private correspondence, and published papers:

"The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: That his justice cannot sleep for ever."
---Notes on the State of Virginia (1782)

"I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation."
---Ibid.

"In the very first session held under the republican government, the assembly passed a law for the perpetual prohibition of the importation of slaves. This will in some measure stop the increase of this great political and moral evil, while the minds of our citizens may be ripening for a complete emancipation of the human nature."
---Ibid.

"The General assembly shall not have power ... to permit the introduction of any more slaves to reside in this state, or the continuance of slavery beyond the generation which shall be living on the 31st. day of December 1800; all persons born after that day being hereby declared free."
---Draft Constitution for the State of Virginia (1783)

"That after the year 1800 of the christian æra, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally guilty."
---Committee Report to the Confederation Congress for the Government of Western Territory (1784)

(That language was incorporated, almost verbatim, in the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865.)

"What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment or death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment be deaf to all those motives whose power supported him thro’ his trial, and inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose."
---Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Jean Nicolas Démeunier (1786)

"You know that nobody wishes more ardently to see an abolition not only of the trade but of the condition of slavery: and certainly nobody will be more willing to encounter every sacrifice for that object."
---Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Brissot de Warville (1788)

"I congratulate you, my dear friend, on the law of your state for suspending the importation of slaves, and for the glory you have justly acquired by endeavoring to prevent it for ever. this abomination must have an end, and there is a superior bench reserved in heaven for those who hasten it."
---Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Edward Rutledge (1787)

"I congratulate you, fellow citizens, on the approach of the period at which you may interpose your authority constitutionally, to withdraw the citizens of the United states from all further participation in those violations of human rights, which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, & which the morality, the reputation, & the best interests of our country have long been eager to proscribe."
---Sixth Annual Message to Congress (1806)

So why did Jefferson not free his slaves?

"In 1779, as a practical solution, Jefferson supported gradual emancipation, training, and colonization of African-American slaves rather than immediate manumission, believing that releasing unprepared persons with no place to go and no means to support themselves would only bring them misfortune."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Je ... nd_slavery

Not to mention, of course, the animus they would have encountered in the Southern states at the time.

As for which was more important, his speeches or actions, the answer is unquestionably his speeches and writings. They inspired every abolitionist and champion of equal rights from Frederick Douglas to Susan B. Anthony to Martin Luther King.
Jefferson clearly believed in neither economic equality, nor equality of opportunity, nor the "liberty" or "pursuit of happiness" mentioned in the Declaration.
Oh, I agree that he did not "believe in" economic equality, or equality of opportunity, since those are both preposterous notions impossible to implement, and are in conflict with liberty, in which he certainly did believe.
GE Morton
Posts: 3702
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by GE Morton »

Sculptor1 wrote: December 10th, 2021, 7:01 am
GE Morton wrote: December 9th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: December 9th, 2021, 6:38 am
Those that detract, rather predictably insist that we are no born equal in that we vary in size, capacity, strength, gender, race, and a whole host of other ways. And so equality is impossible.

I submit that the detractors argument is hopeless and empty. headed.
But is it false? You don't refute it with pejoratives and name-calling.
Methink you do protect too mcuh.
"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal". Do the nay sayers think that the people that signed that statement were idiots? That they had not noticed that people are different?
I submit that the highest aims and motives to provide all persons with an equal chance at life were formulated on the day of the signing, and that this initial aim, a basis to the creation of an entire nation has never seriously been implimented.
Well, your "submission" there is quite mistaken. Jefferson's statement had nothing whatever to do with "providing all persons with an equal chance at life," in the sense of equal opportunities to prosper. Jefferson, and every other classical liberal philosopher of that era, were far too smart to have entertained such an absurd notion. The statement merely means that all persons have equal status as moral agents, and equally entitled to live their lives as they choose; i.e., to pursue happiness as they conceive it, without interference from other people. He amplified upon that in his First Inaugural Address:

" . . . with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
Wrong.

Which shall restrain men from injuring one another. NOT to "provide everyone with equal chances at life."
My, such a lucid and incisive rebuttal. But about what I expected.
Ecurb
Posts: 1584
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: December 10th, 2021, 2:04 pm

Oh, I agree that he did not "believe in" economic equality, or equality of opportunity, since those are both preposterous notions impossible to implement, and are in conflict with liberty, in which he certainly did believe.
If he "believed in liberty" he was a hypocrite. He preferred living in luxury, eating gourmet meals, and having sex with his wife's sister to freeing his slaves. (Sally Hemminghs was (the deceased) Martha Jefferson's half-sister. Jefferson had Sally Hemmings' brother trained as a gouirmet chef in France, when he was an ambassador. That's when his affair with Hemmings began . She was 14 years old, and a slave. Slavery was illegal in France, and Sally's brother threatened to remain there, with his sister, unless Jefferson freed him, which Jefferson did. He had other slaves trained as chefs, because his gourmet dinners appear to have been more important to him than the liberty or pursuit of happiness of his slaves. Had he been willing to live a more economical life, his slaves wouldn't have been sold at auction after his death, to pay off his debts.)

Speaking of "witless" people, GE, how are you doing? You appear unable to discern the difference between speech-making, and actual behavior.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 5105
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GE Morton wrote: December 10th, 2021, 3:28 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: December 10th, 2021, 7:01 am
GE Morton wrote: December 9th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: December 9th, 2021, 6:38 am
Those that detract, rather predictably insist that we are no born equal in that we vary in size, capacity, strength, gender, race, and a whole host of other ways. And so equality is impossible.

I submit that the detractors argument is hopeless and empty. headed.
But is it false? You don't refute it with pejoratives and name-calling.
Methink you do protect too mcuh.
"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal". Do the nay sayers think that the people that signed that statement were idiots? That they had not noticed that people are different?
I submit that the highest aims and motives to provide all persons with an equal chance at life were formulated on the day of the signing, and that this initial aim, a basis to the creation of an entire nation has never seriously been implimented.
Well, your "submission" there is quite mistaken. Jefferson's statement had nothing whatever to do with "providing all persons with an equal chance at life," in the sense of equal opportunities to prosper. Jefferson, and every other classical liberal philosopher of that era, were far too smart to have entertained such an absurd notion. The statement merely means that all persons have equal status as moral agents, and equally entitled to live their lives as they choose; i.e., to pursue happiness as they conceive it, without interference from other people. He amplified upon that in his First Inaugural Address:

" . . . with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
Wrong.

Which shall restrain men from injuring one another. NOT to "provide everyone with equal chances at life."
My, such a lucid and incisive rebuttal. But about what I expected.
I gave it exaclty as much as it deserved
GE Morton
Posts: 3702
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: December 10th, 2021, 4:19 pm
If he "believed in liberty" he was a hypocrite. He preferred living in luxury, eating gourmet meals, and having sex with his wife's sister to freeing his slaves. (Sally Hemminghs was (the deceased) Martha Jefferson's half-sister. Jefferson had Sally Hemmings' brother trained as a gouirmet chef in France, when he was an ambassador. That's when his affair with Hemmings began.
Ah . . . so lacking any substantive rebuttals of the evidence I gave you concerning Jefferson's views on slavery, you now wish to harp on the man's love life and dining preferences? Ad hominems, anyone?

Jefferson supplied the intellectual ammunition utilized by every abolitionist who came after him, including writing, 79 years in advance, the constitutional amendment which abolished it. When Martin Luther King urged the "nation to rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed," the creed to which he referred was penned by Thomas Jefferson.

But comfort yourself with your ad hominems and enjoy your ride on that rickety bandwagon.
Ecurb
Posts: 1584
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: December 10th, 2021, 8:41 pm

Ah . . . so lacking any substantive rebuttals of the evidence I gave you concerning Jefferson's views on slavery, you now wish to harp on the man's love life and dining preferences? Ad hominems, anyone?

Jefferson supplied the intellectual ammunition utilized by every abolitionist who came after him, including writing, 79 years in advance, the constitutional amendment which abolished it. When Martin Luther King urged the "nation to rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed," the creed to which he referred was penned by Thomas Jefferson.

But comfort yourself with your ad hominems and enjoy your ride on that rickety bandwagon.
Your quote mining is unpersuasive, given the historical evidence. Jefferson was undoubtedly a brilliant writer and speaker, but also a hypocrite and an entitled oppressor. I hope that you won't emulate him, although you appear to find that option attractive.

Jefferson's "views on slavery" are made clear by his behavior, whatever his disingenuous speechifying. He appears to have had a penchant for prevarication -- a penchant you share.

Your silly demand for "substantive rebuttals" is made even sillier because you refuse to address rebuttals, preferring to lecture about the nature of society, rights, and human nature. Your Fundamentalism is exactly analagous to that of an Evangelical Christian. Instead of addressing arguments, you quote chapter and verse. Such is your admiration for Capitalists that you can't even see that I'm agreeing with you that the hub-ub about wealth "inequality" is silly -- you demand that everyone also agrees with you that the wealthy are moral paragons for polluting the air, exploiting the labor of the poor, and "creating" human well-being. Sorry. The world is more complicated than that.
GE Morton
Posts: 3702
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: December 10th, 2021, 9:29 pm
Your quote mining is unpersuasive, given the historical evidence.
Er, his writings ARE historical evidence of his views on slavery.
Jefferson's "views on slavery" are made clear by his behavior, whatever his disingenuous speechifying.
Sorry, but no. His views are made clear by those expressed views themselves. Inferring his views from the fact that he did not free his slaves is a lazy, and invalid, inference on your part. As I mentioned (which you apparently chose to ignore,) that fact is merely evidence that he had no good solution to the problem --- he believed that freeing them at that time would have left them worse off.
Your silly demand for "substantive rebuttals" is made even sillier because you refuse to address rebuttals, preferring to lecture about the nature of society, rights, and human nature.
You don't seem to know what a rebuttal is. It is statement which points out a specific logical or factual error in another statement. Baseless denials, dismissals, and ad hominems are not rebuttals. And true statements about the nature of society, rights, etc., can very well serve as rebuttals to popular ideological sophistries.
Your Fundamentalism is exactly analagous to that of an Evangelical Christian.
*Sigh*. And more ad hominems.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 4690
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sculptor1 wrote: December 9th, 2021, 6:38 am Discussions on this topic always decend into the same confusion.
Those that say yes are talking about equality under the law, equality of opportunity, equality across gender and ethnicity for consideration for jobs and wages.
Those that detract, rather predictably insist that we are no born equal in that we vary in size, capacity, strength, gender, race, and a whole host of other ways. And so equality is impossible.
Each human being is different, and therefore exact equality is impossible, maybe even meaningless. But equality as a general term, as we would (and do) use it in everyday life, is perfectly possible, RL-practical, and practised. Sometimes. Other times, the powerful take what they want, often not leaving enough for the less powerful. This is what we generally describe as 'inequality'.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 5105
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 11th, 2021, 8:48 am
Sculptor1 wrote: December 9th, 2021, 6:38 am Discussions on this topic always decend into the same confusion.
Those that say yes are talking about equality under the law, equality of opportunity, equality across gender and ethnicity for consideration for jobs and wages.
Those that detract, rather predictably insist that we are no born equal in that we vary in size, capacity, strength, gender, race, and a whole host of other ways. And so equality is impossible.
Each human being is different, and therefore exact equality is impossible, maybe even meaningless.
Did you read all of what I what I said?
But equality as a general term, as we would (and do) use it in everyday life, is perfectly possible, RL-practical, and practised. Sometimes. Other times, the powerful take what they want, often not leaving enough for the less powerful. This is what we generally describe as 'inequality'.
As I said
GE Morton
Posts: 3702
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by GE Morton »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 11th, 2021, 8:48 am
Other times, the powerful take what they want, often not leaving enough for the less powerful. This is what we generally describe as 'inequality'.
I'm not sure what you mean there. I assume that by "the powerful" you mean "the rich" (correct me if that's wrong). But I'm not sure what you think they are taking, or from whom they are taking it. Could you provide some examples?
Ecurb
Posts: 1584
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: December 11th, 2021, 1:06 am
Er, his writings ARE historical evidence of his views on slavery.

Sorry, but no. His views are made clear by those expressed views themselves. Inferring his views from the fact that he did not free his slaves is a lazy, and invalid, inference on your part. As I mentioned (which you apparently chose to ignore,) that fact is merely evidence that he had no good solution to the problem --- he believed that freeing them at that time would have left them worse off.
Yes, Jefferson's wrtings -- duplicitous though they are -- are "historical evidence". The question is: when someone's public writings contradict his private behavior, which is the better indicator of his true beliefs? I'll bet Jefferson's fellow rapists like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy occasionally stated some noble sentiments, too. Yet their critics sometimes suggested there was something amiss about their sex lives -- just as there was with Saint Thomas Jefferson's.

You don't seem to know what a rebuttal is. It is statement which points out a specific logical or factual error in another statement. Baseless denials, dismissals, and ad hominems are not rebuttals. And true statements about the nature of society, rights, etc., can very well serve as rebuttals to popular ideological sophistries.
You don't appear to know that "ad hominem" (in Latin, no less) is excusable only when referring to a logical error. I grant that although Jefferson's pesonal failings show him to be a rapist and a hypocrite, the sins of the prophet do not invalidate the prophecy. However little Jefferson seems to have believed that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were "inalienable rights", we can continue to respect those rights, even when that respect forces us to lose respect for the author of the words.

Of course we must recognize that different eras had different principles. I'm sure many otherwise good men owned slaves, both in the U.S. and Classical Europe. George Washingtom freed all of his slaves in his will (so Jefferson, at least, had that example). However, Washington had no legitimate children; Jefferson did, and they were in dire financial straits. I also suspect that having sex with 14-year-olds was more acceptable then than it is now -- but I'll bet people still looked askance at 40+ year-olds having affairs with 14-year-olds, even if those were consensual (as was not the case with Hemmings and Jefferson, since she was his slave). I believe Jefferson did free his own children (I can't remember the details) although he didn't publicly acknowledge them during his life. I wonder what it was like, having a father who didn't acknowledge you? Jefferson had six children with Hemmings, four of whom survived to adulthood. The last was born when Saint Thomas (acc. G.E.) was 65 (Hemmings would have been pushing 40 by then).

For anyone interested, I highly recommend "The Hemmingses of Monticello" by Annette Gordon-Reed. G.E.'s calumnies about a "witless woke mob" notwithstanding, the book is a respected history, and Saint Thomas actually looks as good as can be expected in its pages.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 4690
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 11th, 2021, 8:48 am
Other times, the powerful take what they want, often not leaving enough for the less powerful. This is what we generally describe as 'inequality'.
GE Morton wrote: December 11th, 2021, 11:28 am I'm not sure what you mean there. I assume that by "the powerful" you mean "the rich" (correct me if that's wrong). But I'm not sure what you think they are taking, or from whom they are taking it. Could you provide some examples?
I'm fairly sure my words are clear, and my intended meaning is also clear. I will not trade posts with you on what I might mean by "and" or "the". Sorry.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Post Reply

Return to “A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah”

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021