The Single Most Important Subject You Could Study

There is one subject more important than any other earthly subject. It involves everyone. And it dictates the lives of billions. But most people overlook it as an academic exercise reserved for the scholastic elite.

Politics deal with life and death on a daily basis. I’m not talking about dictators or genocides. I’m talking about the root of all government power on the earth, democratic included: controlling people by threat of violence.

Government can only accomplish its goals with one tool: cooperation by the threat of violence.

I am not making a value judgment on this statement (in this post). I am merely stating what is. Right or wrong, good or bad, governments operate via cooperation by the threat of violence.

Laws only mean something if there are consequences.

Not only that, but governments have a legal monopoly on violence.

No one else is allowed to use violence unless they are in dire circumstances.

'Governments have a legal monopoly on violence.' ~ Ayn RandClick To Tweet

Here is one thing we to need take away from this: Governments are about control, and achieving that control by threatening violence.

This is true of all governments. Not just tyrannical ones. Free societies still need their governments to have teeth. If they can’t enforce laws, there would be chaos in the streets.

But, this also means we all live under an entity that can legally use violence to get us to do what it wants.

Whether that power was established by vote or conquest, it doesn’t matter. At the end of the day, if we don’t do what our particular government wants, they can use guns to make us do it.

This is a sobering thought.

The gravity of government should lay a heavy responsibility on our shoulders. We must put more thought into our political positions than any other earthly subject.

We must put more thought into our political positions than any other earthly subject.

We should not adopt ideas simply because we think they make sense. Or because they are “common sense.” Sometimes, things this weighty and important require more thought than a soundbite, meme, or a news article.

Even if we think something is a good idea, we need to ask ourselves, “Am I willing to have this idea enforced at gunpoint?”

That may seem extreme. But if your neighbor doesn’t want to participate in a law that you support, eventually the law–backed by guns–will force them to do it anyway.

So, when your favorite candidate speaks, whether you’re “Feeling The Bern”, or wanting to “Make America Great Again”, are you willing to support their ideas with at gunpoint?

This is why political theory and philosophy are so important. As boring as they sound, they are the things of life. They have ultimate consequences. And they shape the lives of every human being.

What we choose to do with government today will dictate the lives of billions tomorrow.

We cannot be rash. We cannot be flippant. We hold the lives of every human being in our hands.

'If we want to make the world better for tomorrow, we need to study philosophy today.' ~ Sean EdwardsClick To Tweet

When we cast our vote, we are deciding which laws and principles we want to force on those around us.

During this election season, think about that. And realize this: If we want to make the world better for tomorrow, we need to study philosophy today.

  • David

    Let sleeping dogs lie is a good philosophy to follow when trying to involve more people with their government.

    You know what happens when you approach a herd of buffalo unexpectedly? They stampede and follow each other over the cliff.

    The best way to steer a government is for the informed to get involved and let the sleeping dogs lie. 90% of the voting people is beyond ignorance and disturbing their slumber allows the opportunists to lead them over a cliff.

    • Eventually, sleeping dogs get hungry. Then they wake up.

    • David, even though I agree with some of what you say, I can’t adopt that mindset. All people have the ability to think, reason, and choose the right thing. Most people just don’t know how, or don’t why they should pursue it. I didn’t for a long time.

      And, from a purely selfish perspective, I want them to wake up! Sleeping dogs can support laws that put is all in chains. So, if I want to make sure I don’t wake up in chains one day, it behooves me to help my fellow Americans to arise and think.

  • Thank you for touching on this subject. It is so vitally important to vote!

    Having my own business not only gives me the flexibility to get involved with our local campaigns and BPOU, but the opportunity to put my entrepreneurial skills to work for our community.

    It has been a privilege to serve on our county executive board and work on both a state senate and state house election campaign…with wins! Exciting, rewarding…and they always need excellent communicators!

  • Steve

    Clear thinking that goes to the real core of power….
    Every person would be wise to wonder
    Will this power be used sparingly,
    and with the lightest touch?
    will it be used to steal land and resources
    from a weaker culture?
    Under the guise of regime change?
    Or helping freedom fighters?
    And if there is something akin to karma…
    Or if we really do
    reap what we sow…
    Will “permissible violence”
    be used one day,
    by another culture,
    to disenfranchise me?
    In ways I cannot foresee,
    right now?

    How many millions in the past
    who never gave this much thought
    have felt the pit of their stomach tighten
    the smoke of battle
    on their horizon?

    Thanks for the insight.

  • Red

    This is a great way to get people to unsubscribe to your mailing list (as I am about to do right now).

    I thought this website was about copywriting. If I want to be miserable about the plight of the world population, I would watch MSNBC and Fox News, and then cry in my bed sheets. But I want to learn about copywriting. I am nearing the end of Ray’s second book, and I am considering purchasing his first one.

    I’m just glad you wrote this instead of Ray. I don’t want to lose faith in my favorite copywriter.

    • Red, it’s worth pointing out that while Sean wrote this, I approved its publication. Thanks for your comment. I’m curious: what, exactly, did you find so offensive?

      • Dan


        While “offensive” is not the way I’d describe it, I did find this article problematic. The Force theory of government is one theory. Sean writes:
        “I am not making a value judgment on this statement (in this post). I am merely stating what is. Right or wrong, good or bad, governments operate via cooperation by the threat of violence.”
        Sean isn’t merely “stating what is.” He is selecting one theory and passing it off as objective fact. When I read articles that pretend that their preferred theory is the only possible way of thinking about something (in this case government) I lose trust in the author. I would think that you as the blog sponsor and Sean as the blog author would want to be careful not to do that.

        For a quick high school level look at theories of government here’s a link:

        While force may have a role in all of these theories, it only has the central role that Sean gives it in one of them. To those who ascribe to the Evolutionary theory, saying that the only tool at the government’s disposal is “cooperation by threat of violence” (as Sean says in this article) sounds as crazy as saying that the only tool you had in raising Sean to do his chores or his homework–or whatever–was “cooperation by threat of violence.” That would be a fairly nasty assumption to make about your family dynamic. And just to be clear, I don’t believe it’s true for one second–my sense is that you are a very warm and kind person who isn’t particularly prone to violence or threats of violence.

        Those who ascribe to the theory that Sean presents tend to end up on one end of the political spectrum. If Sean wants to advocate for the Force theory or for the politics that emerge from it, that’s fine with me. Just don’t do it by pretending that “my way of thinking is the only way of thinking.” And understand that for people who think that government has other tools at its disposal besides force, their more benign view of government, and the politics that emerge from those views, is being discounted by this article.

        • Dan, thank you for your thoughts. I have a question for you… What other tools does the government have to accomplish its mission? If we the people task the government with something, what other tools (besides force) can they use?

          I like to consider myself an open-minded person, so if you can illustrate one thing the government does that isn’t ultimately backed by force, then I will adjust my position.

          • Dan

            Thanks for your response. I think we need to begin with what “its mission” is. I don’t think there is agreement about the mission of government. Then we would need to talk about things the government “does.” Your focus is only on laws–but government does much more than pass laws.

            So here’s one thing to start with: The government provides grants for all sorts of purposes–to encourage business, to provide money for medical research, etc.

            You may respond that the government gets that money through taxation and that it enforces taxation though guns. Another person’s opinion might be that the government gets that money through taxation and that taxation is agreed to by the governed because the governed understand that they will benefit by allowing the government to do things that single people (or States) can’t do on their own. It’s a matter of opinion–not of “fact” as you state in your article.

        • Dan, thanks for sharing the “high school level look at theories of government”.

          I did not graduate from college, so I appreciate the help. To my credit, however, I do continue to read books all these decades later, so perhaps there is hope for me. 😉

          Sean, on the other hand, has not one, but two, college degrees.

          As to “another person’s opinion” being “that the government gets that money through taxation and that taxation is agreed to by the governed”… which government has secured their tax revenue by consent? I am a native-born US citizen. I never agreed to be taxed. I was “opted in” to the US Tax Code without being consulted on the matter.

          I pay my taxes because it is illegal not to (it would be accurate to add that while that is the primary reason, it is not the only reason). I do know that failure to pay my taxes will ultimately result in the seizure of my assets by the government. The government agents who perform that seizure, as far as I can ascertain, will be carrying guns. Perhaps they are armed only for their own protection.

          I do appreciate a spirited debate, especially when conducted in a polite way. Thank you for engaging in such a discussion here.

        • Dan, I couldn’t respond to your response. So here its.

          You are correct, I see force as the ultimate tool backing the government when it dispenses grants. And as much as I respect your position, I don’t think you can attribute my argument to opinion.

          I make a distinction between direct force, and indirect force, but both require the use of force. When the government passes a law against using drugs, for instance, that is direct force. You break the law, we force you to comply.

          In your grant example, the government must use indirect force to dispense the grants. The primary task assigned to the government was to dispense grants for whatever (research, construction, etc…), which does not require force. But funding those grants does require force. I.e., the government cannot accomplish the “will of the people” without forcing everyone to comply. This is not opinion, this is fact.

          If a majority of the people vote to tax everyone to pay for a grant, I have no choice but to comply. Even if I voted no. And even if I don’t agree with the premise of the grant. If I do not pay, eventually guns will be drawn.

          This is quite alarming when you take the first amendment into consideration. How often are people being forced to pay for things with which they do not agree? And isn’t forcing someone to financially support a message violating their freedom of speech? Doesn’t that mean we are forcing them to “speak” a certain way?

          You may disagree with my definition of government. And you may think that giving the government these powers (in the right context) is for the ultimate good of society. That is fine. You have a right to that opinion.

          But in either situation, the government must still use force to accomplish its mission. That is not an opinion.

          Because of this, people will often conclude that I’m anti-taxes. But I am not. I think taxes are important, and I think the government needs to have the muscle to collect those taxes.

          How those taxes are used determines if they are moral or immoral. This is the bottom-line: If the governed task the government with something, it is forced upon everyone. Either directly, or indirectly.

          I am not judging policy in this post. I’m not endorsing one party over another. I am merely trying to inspire people to study political philosophy so they can make informed decisions about things that will affect everyone.

    • Part of the joy of having a platform is that someday you can use it to talk about things that matter most to you personally.

      Ray I’m so glad that you published this piece. Making your business grow and changing the world are both worthy aspects of a single mission.

      • Thanks Cody!

      • Dan

        Sean and Ray,

        First of all, I agree with Ray when he says that he appreciates spirited debate, especially when conducted in a polite way. I hope my comments are heard as both spirited and polite. I know I hear both of your comments in that way.

        We may be at the point where we need to agree to disagree. Sean, I understand the point of view you are expressing. I even think that it is sometimes correct. Sometimes governments use force, or the threat of force, to get people to comply. But I don’t think that is what happens at all times and in every instance. You say that “government can only accomplish its goals with one tool: cooperation by the threat of violence.” I think government has more than one tool. You think that all other tools are irrelevant. I state that this is your opinion and you state that it’s a fact.

        In your example of a “majority of the people [voting] to tax everyone for a grant,” what tools did the government use to get the majority of the people to vote that way? Were they forced at gunpoint? I think tools of persuasion other than force were used. This would seem to suggest that government has more than one tool at its disposal.

        You say “the government cannot accomplish the ‘will of the people’ without forcing everyone to comply.” Again, it seems to me that very few people are forced at gunpoint to comply. Rather, many (even most) people comply not because they are forced at gunpoint but because government has more than one tool to get people to comply.

        I understand that you disagree. The fact that there is more than one theory of government, and that these theories have been around for a while, would seem to indicate that there are multiple views on the subject. You don’t want to give those views any credence. Instead, you want to insist that only one of those theories is right, in all cases and at all times. I say that’s your opinion and you are welcome to it. You say that no, it’s not your opinion, it’s a fact. I believe I have provided enough evidence to at least bring this “fact” into question. You disagree.

        At that point, it seems we have to agree to disagree.

        As to your goal of inspiring people to study political philosophy, I think that is a wonderful and noble goal. If they do, they will be exposed to multiple theories on government, its origins, its purpose and how it is able to function. And, like you, they may come to the conclusion that one of these theories is fact and all others are fiction. And when they tell you that your theory is wrong and their theory is right, and that’s a fact, I will respond that theirs is a theory and that there are other theories and that in this case, they are wrong to present their opinion as fact.

        • Delightfully worded! Thanks, Dan.

          • Dan

            Wow! Praise for my copy from Ray Edwards 🙂 I’m honored!

            Thank you for your good spirit and kind words.

        • Ed

          I think what you’re saying is akin to: “Apples and oranges and pears. Facts and opinions and theories. Know the difference.” That’s well and good, but all are fruit. And to that fact, I think all can agree to agree. I think we can also agree to agree that logic is logic, whether used in fact or opinion or theories.

          You wrote to Sean: You say “the government cannot accomplish the ‘will of the people’ without forcing everyone to comply.” Again, it seems to me that very few people are forced at gunpoint to comply. Rather, many (even most) people comply not because they are forced at gunpoint but because government has more than one tool to get people to comply.

          Does your opinion/response stand up to the test of logic? The question that Sean’s theory, if you will, is answering is: “What happens in the ultimate situation where an individual – one person (which may be you) – refuses to comply?” – not: “How many tools does a government have if/when most people will comply?” That’s where logic fails in your response, because you are, for all intents and purposes, changing the question. The answer to your question, you answer correctly: many. The answer to Sean’s question, he answers correctly: one.

          What you seem to be saying is that there is only one right question and that Sean is asking the wrong question. That logic fails, because there are no wrong questions, but there are many wrong answers … including changing the question. It’s one thing to question the question. That’s fair game. It’s quite another to change the question in the answer and claim the initial answer is wrong because it presents “opinion as fact”.

          Also, every question and every answer exists in a context. Your question and answer exists in the context of a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Sean’s “ultimate” question and answer exists in the context of all governments including those not of the people, not by the people and not of the people. And in light of that, Sean brings it back on us – the lucky ones: those in the U.S.A. – when he concludes:
          “When we cast our vote, we are deciding which laws and principles we want to force on those around us. During this election season, think about that.”

          The world is coming around, but most people on this planet don’t have that choice … by force (not threat) of violence.

          Thank you Dan and Sean for the civil exchange. And thank you, Ray, for all you do!

    • Red, I appreciate your candor. I understand you want to learn about copywriting. And since I work with my father, I appreciate that. Copywriting is very important.

      The principles of strategic communication lie at the core of copywriting. Sure, we have a system for putting that message into a powerful sales funnel, but at the end of the day, copywriting is all about communication and messaging.

      This article is strategic communication. I employ several of the principles we teach in Copywriting Academy. So, if you like, just think of this article as an example of copywriting that doesn’t sell a specific product… or does it?

      Also, I am an overly optimistic person. People sometimes think I’m naive I’m so optimistic. Thus, my article was not meant to communicate the “plight of the world population.” It had one message: We need to take politics and philosophy much more seriously. Because it deals with issues of life and death. I want to encourage people to invest in the future, because I believe it will be a beautiful place.

  • Thank You.

    This is great compelling copy.

    My thoughts (Ability to actually THINK) is that the internet has the power and will bring most major Corps to ruins within the next couple of decades.

    The Online Co’s that deliver on service, moral character, enjoyable experience and transparency will rise to the top fast and the big boys who rule their markets now will be knocked off their almighty perch. (Pay Pal had great slogan about Old Money vs New)

    This kind of power may and most likely will invoke the puppeteers to begin regulating the virtual world. This is a thought one must consider. The BIG Boys will not go quietly. Thus, he or she who governs, governs not from a place of integral morality but from a place of power.

    Think about that.

    What is the value of your Copy is it doesn’t get seen?

    2 Cents Mark.

  • This was well articulated. I believe it wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, this year, I am having difficulty voting for anyone in the Top Tier race. This isn’t a matter of just not liking the candidates, it’s a matter of knowing that one day I will have to be accountable for my vote, whether or not the candidate gets elected. We had so many options that I could have gone with, and this is what we are left with? I need a Godly man to vote for. I’m putting my stamp of approval on the candidate I vote for. I may have to write in this year. I know it seems like a waste, but I also need to be able to live with myself.

  • Hilary Moore

    Interesting but I think what is even more important than our political position is our spiritual position. No government is perfect or ideal and there are good and bad in all systems and many things we have no control over however what we can control is our own thoughts and choices and life and by making the most of this, we can then make a big influence on those and the world we gravitate in. I think some people spend too much time observing and criticising politicians instead of using that time to do what they can do to improve their own world and be a leader there, within whatever system. As Ghandi said ” Be the change you want to see in the world.” And as Mother Theresa said ” I was asked to partake in a anti war rally and I replied I would never spend my time rallying against anything but rather being for something, in this case – peace. I believe we should focus on what we can change and keep moving onwards and upwards – making a masterpiece of our life and from that place of power and strength and joy we can really help other people.

  • Matthew Curry

    Great article Sean. You are right, and this applies to every earthly government. Even if one is an agent for change, and said change is positive, someone who disagrees will be forced to go along with that change against their will.

    There is only one perfect government in the universe, and that is the one that Jesus brought to earth with him when he came over 2000 years ago. It is the Kingdom of God. I don’t believe this government forces anyone to do anything against their will by violence.

  • Gary

    There’s no question that politics is an elitist game for people who have an excess of personal ambition and dubious ethics, but Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry as a qualification to make comment!!!!!? You should have stopped at a degree in history if you wanted it to have credibility. Not a prime example of copy-writing’s best.

    • Thanks for offering your opinion, Gary. I think you missed the point. Perhaps you might want to read the post again.

      In my opinion, being a citizen is what gives a person the “qualification to comment”. Ideas stand or fall on their own. Qualifying or disqualifying the value of a person’s commentary based on a degree, certification, or endorsement is at best an error in thinking, and more commonly a “false flag” waved by someone who hasn’t taken the time to think through an actual defense of their position. Ironic, given the fact that the point of the piece was not to promote one particular point of view, but rather to encourage thinking through the philosophy behind the issues.

    • One more item to address is this statement: “There’s no question that politics is an elitist game for people who have an excess of personal ambition and dubious ethics.”

      What is your basis for making this statement? I think it’s important to say precisely what one means, and to offer proof when making incendiary and accusatory statements like this. It’s important to not throw around accusations as if they were facts.

      I completely disagree with your statement. Here’s why:

      1. Politics is not a game. It is life vs. death, poverty vs. wealth, justice vs lawlessness. Anyone who plays at this as “a game” might well be regarded as a psychopath.

      2. Politics is not elitist. It is open to anyone to participate. True, those in elite circles might have an advantage in certain ways, but the fact remains that anyone can succeed in politics if they work hard and work intelligently.

      3. As to this “game” being restricted to those “who have an excess of personal ambition and dubious ethics”… well that’s just not true, and it makes the classic logical error of “guilt by association”. For me to take that statement seriously, I would have to see the evidence that demonstrates that every person currently active in politics has been proven, by empirical evidence, to have an objectively measurable “excess of personal ambition and dubious ethics”. All it takes to disprove the assertion is evidence there is at least one person who is successfully involved in politics and does not possess those character flaws. I know several politicians, and even more citizens who are politically active but not professional politicians, whose purpose and success in politics is because of a drive to serve the public good, and who operate based upon an impeccable personal code of ethics.

  • Yes, important subject matter because the difference between a de jure (lawful) constitutional republic and a de facto (unlawful, but operating in fact) corporate democracy, uncovers whether current purported “federal/state government” in America is in fact de jure (lawful) or de facto (unlawful).

    When de facto occupational corporate government becomes obvious to you, the fraud to cover up the big fraud, no longer deceives you…

  • Roger

    Ray and Sean,

    If we want to make the world, and in particular the USA, a better place to live, we should learn the law and apply it. Political theory and philosophy have their place, but the law is the final determinant of how we live our lives. If indeed our government is “of the people, by the people and for the people,” then said government should be something the people create and control. But how can we do this if we don’t know the law? And I’m not talking about our elected officials. I’m talking about the common man and woman.

    All law must have an original source. And whether we the people choose to believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or not, He is the original source of all law. Public Law 97-280 acknowledges the Bible as the Word of God and admonishes us as a nation and people to study it and apply it.

    In Genesis God granted Adam and Eve possession of and dominion over that which He created. He also granted them agency – the right to determine the course of their own lives. All three rights combined constitute sovereignty. We all have sovereignty over our own bodies and all that we lawfully posses. Our country is unique in all the world in that we are a nation of sovereigns. The problem is that we the people unwittingly give up our sovereignty by our lack of knowledge.

    Ray, you commented: “I am a native-born US citizen. I never agreed to be taxed. I was ‘opted in’ to the US Tax Code without being consulted on the matter.”

    I felt the same until I began to study the law. You should understand what a “US citizen” is under the United States Code before making such claims. And if you signed the back of a Social Security Card sent to you by the Social Security Administration or used the NAME and NUMBER on the face of said card in commerce, then you opted into the US Tax Code as you call it.

    Understanding what that SS card is and its purpose will go a long way toward you regaining your sovereignty as well as fully complying with both God’s Law and man’s law. By then you will discover who the real taxpayer is and act accordingly.

    • Because you brought up God’s Law – I thought it might be useful to be reminded of what the Scripture says about “The Law” (specifically for those under the New Covenant of Christ)…

      The law is an unbearable yoke. (Acts 15:10)

      The law reveals sin but cannot fix it. (Romans 3:20)
      If the law worked then faith would be irrelevant. (Romans 4:14)
      The law brings wrath upon those who follow it. (Romans 4:15)
      The purpose of the law was to increase sin. (Romans 5:20)
      Christians are not under the law. (Romans 6:14)
      Christians have been delivered from the law. (Romans 7:1-6)
      The law is good, perfect, and holy but cannot help you be good, perfect, or holy. (Romans 7:7-12)
      The law which promises life only brings death through sin. (Romans 7:10)
      The law makes you sinful beyond measure. (Romans 7:13)
      The law is weak. (Romans 8:2-3)

      1 Corinthians
      The strength of sin is the law. (1 Corinthians 15:56)

      2 Corinthians
      The law is a ministry of death. (2 Corinthians 3:7)
      The law is a ministry of condemnation. (2 Corinthians 3:9)
      The law has no glory at all in comparison with the New Covenant. (2 Corinthians 3:10)
      The law is fading away. (2 Corinthians 3:11)
      Anywhere the law is preached it produces a mind-hardening and a heart-hardening veil. (2 Corinthians 3:14-15)

      The law justifies nobody. (Galatians 2:16)
      Christians are dead to the law. (Galatians 2:19)
      The law frustrates grace. (Galatians 2:21)
      To go back to the law after embracing faith is “stupid.” (Galatians 3:1)
      The law curses all who practice it and fail to do it perfectly. (Galatians 3:10)
      The law has nothing to do with faith. (Galatians 3:11-12)
      The law was a curse that Christ redeemed us from. (Galatians 3:13)
      The law functioned in God’s purpose as a temporary covenant from Moses till John the Baptist announced Christ. (Galatians 3:16 & 19, also see Matthew 11:12-13, Luke 16:16)

      If the law worked God would have used it to save us. (Galatians 3:21)
      The law was our prison. (Galatians 3:23)
      The law makes you a slave like Hagar. (Galatians 4:24)

      Christ has abolished the law which was a wall of hostility. (Ephesians 2:15)

      Paul considered everything the law gained him as “skybalon” which is Greek for “poop.” (Philippians 3:4-8)

      1 Timothy
      The law is only good if used in the right context. (1Timothy 1:8 – see next verse for the context)
      The law was made for the unrighteous but not for the righteous. (1 Timothy 1:9-10)

      The law is weak, useless, and makes nothing perfect. (Hebrews 7:18-19)
      (As an aside – that’s some fighting talk – no wonder the author of Hebrews remains anonymous to this day!)
      God has found fault with it and created a better covenant, enacted on better promises. (Hebrews 8:7-8)
      It is obsolete, growing old, and ready to vanish. (Hebrews 8:13)
      It is only a shadow of good things to come and will never make someone perfect. (Hebrews 10:1)

      This list of scripture, and the commentary was supplied by my good friend Phil Drysdale. I recommend you read Phil’s blog at

  • Saw a meme the other day attributing a quote to Mark Twain (which I doubt) which said “If our vote could make a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.”
    Jesus called the enemy of our souls “the ruler of this world.”
    As a monarchist, and, therefore, removed from this culltour’s political process, I constantly remind myself that our weapons are not carnal, and our kingdom is not of this world.
    I applaud your effort to stimulate thought among the zombies–the congregation of the dead–and will pray you have an impact, make a difference, experience some satisfaction.
    God bless you!

  • Kathy Perrin Hosier

    Hi Ray, Your willingness to make your faith in Jesus is so refreshing to me. My life is about loving and following Jesus, and I’ve recently seen that in you as well; first when I heard your podcast with Andy Mason, and then in one of your blog post’s (I can’t remember which one) your love for Jesus was evident.

    I love that about you! And I also love how you’ve shared your 10 pillars free of charge. They are AMAZING!!! I’m getting ready to publish a series of volumes I’ve written on the Armor of God, and am going to use your 5 emotional pillars in the introductions of each volume.

    I know many people tell you how amazing your copywriting techniques are, and how you’ve helped them…..and now I’m joining the crowd. Thank you so much for sharing with us all online. If I can effectively use your 5 emotional pillars to sell people on walking closer to Jesus, I’ll be walking on air!

    I’ve been praying for years, during the writing of my volumes, “Lord, I can tell people about You. But how do I motivate them to care about walking with You? I need to say something that will move them to action. I can tell them how wonderful you are, but how do I motivate them to act on what I am saying?”

    Ray, your 5 emotional motivators are the Lord’s answer to me, He tells me. But I knew it the day I listened to your first video (the first of the four you recently shared). Amazing information! Thank you so much!

    Kindest regards,

    Kathy Perrin Hosier

  • Force is the final desperate effort of a government, whether that be the captain of a ship, the Dad of the household, or more frequently, Mom — or any other leader. Force is necessary when persuasion has failed. Persuasion is our business.

    I’m hoping that Ray might take an interest in a VSL I put together for a video series going through the Constitution word-by-word, section-by-section.

    The series is linked on our website. The VSL is in testing, available by special request.

  • After reading the other comments, and the high-school theory of the rise of states suggested in one comment, and having taught US Constitution in High Schools and community groups for 25 years …

    I really hope Ray (or Sean) will look at the “Going through the Constitution word-by-word” video series, particularly Part 4a “Forms of Government” and Part 4c “Are we a Christian Nation?”

    Is this off-topic? The topic was Politics, but I am trying to steer it toward Governance. I believe that is much more important.

    Glad a friend pointed me to your website.