The truth is that, throughout history, the vile left has never been interested in lifting people up. Instead of focusing on income inequality, their focus should be on setting people free – to be on their own! – to go as far as their talents and hard work will take them.
Robert Ringer's column titillated my sincere desire to make sure that his writing is read by as many people as possible. This is about We the People knowing that the President is wrong about what needs to be done to help the American people, and Robert reinforces our knowledge of what has been going on in this country since President Obama came on the scene four years ago. We really wish more people had been aware of what then candidate Obama told "Joe the Plumber," that he wants to "spread the wealth around."
The scariest thing is that not only were people not listening and staying informed, but that they ignored the warning signs of what was to come in Obama's first three years. President Obama and his Marxist minions are of the belief that government can solve all of our problems. Conservatives believe that individual responsibility with laissez faire free market capitalism ultimately does better in the end: Every time. Why would anyone want to change how we do things that has helped America prosper in the past few centuries?
But as I read through the column several more times, I discovered another two paragraphs that influenced me to say something about what We the People can do to prove the President is wrong, and Robert Ringer is right:
No civilized person wants to see those who are seriously health challenged or mentally challenged suffer, so the question is not whether or not such people should be helped. The question is, who is best equipped to help them – politicians, whose chief aim is to perpetuate their own power, or free individuals, who have a genuine desire to be charitable to those who are incapable of fending for themselves?
If the scam of politicians taking from those who produce and giving the stolen loot to those whom they deem to be "in need" worked, the poverty rate would not be about the same today (14.3 percent) as it was when the Great Society was launched back in 1965. What Lyndon Johnson's "generosity" proved is that it doesn't matter how much of other people's money you give away, it does nothing to lift people up. The hard evidence shows that it is government's redistribution-of-wealth policies that have not worked.
No, we do not really need the government to be our nanny. And being that this is the Christmas season, this is the opportune time to make this proposal; there is never a better time to display the great generosity of the American people. YOU, not the government, can reach out to give less fortunate people assistance in many ways.
Hopefully, you have heard about the "pay it forward" events where people pay for the meal at a fast food establishment for the person in line behind them. It also recently came to the attention of the media that there have been anonymous donors that help out people that are trying to pay off a layaway purchase at various retail establishments.
We are aware of all the people with the financial capability that give large sums of money to many of the various charities and "causes." We even help out orphans around the world by funding or adopting them. America is still the most generous nation on the planet.
But, there is still the possibility that we could actually go a step further.
It is my belief that if every one of us that has the financial means, the time, and the opportunity to help out one other individual or family that is struggling along, there probably wouldn't be a need for government agencies to step in and spend the taxpayer's money on the many programs that have been instituted in order for us to gain some type of "collective salvation."
We the People really can prove that Robert Ringer is right, and Obama and his Marxist minions are wrong. We the People can make a concentrated effort to help lift up those that really could benefit from our assistance.
Between now and next November, and that really isn't too long from now, it is time to re-educate the American population, and counter all the lies that have been fed to the masses by those on the left in the schools, unions, the media, and most of all, the government. If We the People step up, we can make a very positive impact on what - or who - less fortunate people expect to come to their assistance.
Isn't it time that we start thinking about others? Our friends, our relatives, or our neighbors? Can you do something to help out somebody? I am sure you can. Even moral support can help. Let's take this country back from those that keep their power because they can take from those that have to give to give to people that don't have. WE the PEOPLE can do a much better job! I think that we can show that "You're-on-your-own economics" has worked, and always will.
It's time to learn and teach that is better to love your neighbor rather than the government. I'm just sayin'...
* * * *
'You're-on-your-own economics'? Bring it on!
 |
| ROBERT RINGER |
By Robert Ringer
December 14, 2011 ~ 2:25 pm Eastern
© 2011
Oops! The presidential pretender went and did it again. A lot of red ink has passed over the socialist dam since he unthinkingly told Joe the Plumber that he wants to "spread the wealth around."
Or since he told Charlie Gibson that "It's a matter of fairness" when Gibson repeatedly asked him to explain why he would want to raise the capital-gains tax when the historical evidence proves that higher capital-gains taxes actually decrease government revenues.
Of course, there have been endless not-so-subtle clues as to Obama's impeccable collectivist credentials since then, but, on the whole, he tends to choose his words carefully so as not to awaken the sleeping frogs. One must always be mindful not to let the water get too hot.
But last week Obama let it all hang out in a speech at a Kansas high school when he said, "[T]here is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, 'Let's respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. The market will take care of everything,' they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger."
Moving in for the kill, he went on to say, "And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. … I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory. We simply cannot return to this brand of you're-on-your-own economics if we're serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country."
That's right, folks, capitalism had nothing to do with the United States becoming the most prosperous country in the history of the world. It had nothing to do with millions of ambitious people starting with nothing and becoming millionaires and even billionaires. And it has nothing to do with the fact that "poor people" (as defined by the Census Bureau) in the U.S. live better than middle-class people in most other countries.
READ MORE on WND.com
The depressing part is socialism spreads because people like their freebies. They like being dependent. They will passionately vote for the candidate, party and agenda that keeps those freebies flowing. If anyone objects, they are called racist, intolerant and – oh yeah – "holding back the progression of mankind."
Free people are responsible people. They have to be. And the more responsible the people, the fewer laws are needed. But when we stop acting responsibly and start relying on the government for everything, we become a nation of whining victims where nothing is ever our fault and the government assumes the responsibility that should have been ours.
Government interference and the enthusiastic redistribution of wealth will bring this nation to its knees. And it's hard to progress anywhere when you're crawling on your knees.
But socialists will never agree. They simply do not grasp that the advancement of 5,000 years will never PROgress under their form of government. Instead, it will REgress.
So to those who honestly think that socialism results in the progression of mankind, I offer the best intellectual reply I can muster:
Bwahahahahahahaha.
I was a college grad, in the Air Force, and trying to decide how to spend the rest of my life and career after I finished my 4 year commitment (which I extended for another 8 months). And then, in 1980, along came Ronald Reagan, who inspired me to understand why freedom is so important. I began to comprehend why America was the shining city on the hill. The United States was the beacon of freedom, where we had the opportunity to use our God given abilities to get ahead. Well, that was how I thought it was supposed to be. At the same time, I actually started learning about free enterprise, entrepreneurship, and capitalism, and in the same year, I joined Amway.
In the attempt to succeed at Amway, I learned about commitment. I found out that a lot of commitment was needed to succeed, no matter what vehicle you were going to use. I did all that I could to "share the plan by drawing the circles" to as many people as possible! In the process, I learned about failure despite our best efforts. Was it because I wasn't competent enough to teach people how to do the business? No. Was it because I just didn't have the charisma to lead an organization or to inspire people to do what it takes? Maybe.
But, before I explain what I think led to my failure in "the business," I need to assure you that I am not blaming anyone but myself. I'm only telling you about that experience because it fits perfectly with what Patrice explains in this column.
You see, my belief was in the American entrepreneurial spirit, and the precept that everyone has a dream, and if offered an opportunity, would do what ever it took. That was how I was raised. When I was a kid, if I wanted something bad enough, I'd mow a lawn. I did whatever it took. I had the impression that everybody knew that! So, I did my best to try to recruit (sponsor) people that didn't seem to have a way to get ahead. I knew that a lack of education or social status didn't mean that it was impossible to change our financial status if we wanted to bad enough. I believed that there were many people that just needed something that they could do (and I knew how "easy" Amway actually was!), and I was more than willing to help and teach and love them despite their current position in life, despite financial status, skin color or religion.
But when I learned how many people were thinking, it shattered my faith in the American spirit. It was disturbing how many people had lost their dream, and were "dead from the neck up." This was when I found out that if somebody was able to collect on some government entitlements, they weren't willing to even consider committing any effort toward bettering their lives. I found that their dreams were either never there, or had already been extinguished.
So, when you read this terrific column by Patrice, would you please keep in mind that if it was that way over 30 years ago, just how "progressive" are things now? Has "class envy" replaced the work ethic? Yes. And yes, it is really sad that somebody even tried to explain to Patrice why she is "holding back the progression of mankind."
So, how are we supposed to turn around a general societal attitude like that? Maybe there just needs to be a lot more Amway distributors out there, teaching a few people - or even ONE! - at a time about the differences between capitalism and socialism, and that we have to eventually choose between freedom or slavery. And that the truth is, freedom or slavery IS a choice! Nobody (yet) is holding a gun to anyone's head to make that choice. It's just about attitude and hanging out with people that will give you a hand up, rather than a hand out. I'm just sayin'...
* * *
I'm holding back the progression of mankind!
 |
| PATRICE LEWIS |
By Patrice Lewis
May 21, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2011
I got the funniest email this week. It seems someone found an older column of mine entitled "What is a socialist?" (I'll pause if you care to read it.) Then he sent the following:
You're [sic] excerpt on socialism … is disgusting. Way to bend every little fact you can find to your bias. All you're doing is holding back the progression of mankind.
The sad part is the sender apparently believes what he wrote. Putting aside the amusing presumption that a north Idaho housewife is somehow responsible for arresting the development of the civilized world, I laughed heartily at his last statement.
If an aversion to socialism is holding back the progression of mankind, the corollary is that socialism will advance the progression of mankind. If this is the case, we need only to look at socialist countries, past and present, to gauge the success of how mankind is progressing under that form of government.
Let's see, there's the (former) USSR. North Korea. Venezuela. Cuba. Charming places, all of them. I can hardly wait to arrange my next vacation.
Then there are the (cough) "successful" socialist countries in Europe, which are slowly imploding because (to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher) they finally ran out of other peoples' money.
The usual progressive argument is, "Well, this time it will be different." Um, no. It can never be different because human nature never changes. Those in power will always wish to grow stronger and more in control. Those without power will, sooner or later, lose all incentive and motivation if the fruits of their labor are routinely taken from them. And those who are dependent on government entitlements will do everything they can to stay dependent, and demand more.
Ah, entitlements. That is the crux of the whole ugly scenario. Entitlements, as any sane person knows, means forcibly removing and redistributing personal wealth at the point of a gun. Far too many progressives are delighted to remove other peoples' money and pass it around. They cannot and will not admit that redistribution of wealth is a lose-lose scenario. The earner loses incentive to work harder because it only means more of his money is taken; and the receiver loses the incentive to earn his own because he is supplied with free money. Pretty obvious, right?
READ MORE at WND.com
Commentary from WorldNetDaily
By Erik Rush
Posted: January 14, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2010
I was watching some video the other day of William Ayers speaking on capitalism. You may have just cringed, but I engage in such activity concerning those with whom I vehemently disagree because I believe that, if I am to refer to someone as a societal parasite or ambulating excrement, it is my responsibility to have a sound basis for doing so. As you may know, Ayers is the unrepentant domestic terrorist from the 1970s who participated in the bombings of New York City police headquarters, the Capitol building in Washington and the Pentagon.
Bill Ayers was never successfully prosecuted due to legal technicalities, and later served on the boards of two far left nonprofits with Barack Obama – yes, our illustrious president. During the 2008 presidential campaign, in fact, Obama claimed to know next to nothing about him, despite Ayers' international infamy and Obama having been a "fellow traveler" (an insider expression among Marxists for those who share an affinity for Marxist philosophy). In his heyday (when he was bombing government buildings), Ayers, his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, and the Weather Underground terrorist group they founded advocated for a communist revolution in America.
I wound up seething (after watching the video) and wondered how it was that someone had not treated this man's grey matter to the light of day decades ago. Ayers' distinguished professorship (at the University of Illinois at Chicago) and his popularity on the lecture circuit speak to the fountain of subversion and mediocrity American academics has become. What's far more disturbing is that he and his ilk are not laughed out of lecture halls for the profoundly juvenile temperament of their political philosophy. Indeed, though couched in intellectual trappings and mock sagacity, it is little more than the expression of deep spitefulness and envy. The more I am exposed to the insipid, toxic mouthings of far-left icons, the more they come off like spoiled children who believe they have a right to that which another other child has, simply because they desire it.
As a Christian, in my view, all of the good things we've come by have been due to the grace of God. In the operational sense, they've come to us through the vehicles of capitalism and a free society.
READ FULL STORY >
Posts
