Roll your eyes if you wish, but do yourself a favor and stay alert for a possible drastic change in the American way of life as we continue to move briskly down the road to financial ruin. Do not be deluded into believing that America is immune to the same consequences that have destroyed so many other nations.
Having said this, I hasten to add that Barack Obama and his progressive allies are not our biggest threat. In fact, they would be as hapless as were Marx and Engels if it were not for the avarice of benefit-addicted voters who have no desire to compete in the free market for their livelihoods. With this in mind, I would argue that it isn't so much that people get the government they deserve. Rather, they get the government that reflects their own values. If a majority of Americans are willing to ignore the Constitution and demand that their transfer-of-wealth largess remain intact no matter how obvious the cataclysmic long-term consequences may be, they will vote for politicians they believe are most likely to keep the government redistribution-of-wealth machine well oiled and running.
Thus, instead of complaining about corrupt politicians, Americans need to take a good look in the mirror and start thinking long and hard about their own tainted morals, as well as what kind of nation they want to leave their children and grandchildren.
ROBERT RINGER
By Robert Ringer
June 09, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2011
While some conservative commentators are on the right side of most issues, they are careful to stay "in bounds." The last thing in the world any political pundit wants is to be seen as an extremist by his colleagues.
Recently, I watched a panel of think-tank experts debate how best to solve our country's fiscal problems. What caught my attention was that no one – not even the free-enterprise spokesmen from the conservative Heritage Foundation and the Free Enterprise Institute – so much as alluded to the unconstitutionality of any of the myriad government programs that have caused these problems.
What does this mean? Simply that the far left in this country has, for all practical purposes, already succeeded in fundamentally transforming America, regardless of who the next president is. The problem is that even though many conservatives are experts when it comes to debating the factual side of fiscal issues, they seem to accept, by default, the false premise that government transfer-of-wealth programs are constitutional.
At least one motivating force behind this sad situation is pragmatism. For example, both Dick Morris and Donald Trump have opined that Republicans are committing suicide with Paul Ryan's proposed plan to overhaul Medicare. And they could very well be right.
Morris is a strategy genius when it comes to elections, so it's no surprise that his opinion is based on what he believes is necessary to win the next election. I get it.
But if conservatives fear that Ryan's addressing the single biggest fiscal problem facing the U.S. will result in re-electing a Marxist president, it tells you a lot about the decline of America as a virtuous nation. More to the point, it means that a majority of voters are so addicted to our redistribution-of-wealth culture that they will vote against anyone who dares to threaten that culture.
Thus, the question of constitutionality increasingly appears to be off the table when it comes to debating major fiscal issues such as the deficit, the debt ceiling, unfunded Medicare and Social Security liabilities, and redistribution-of-wealth programs ranging from unemployment benefits to food stamps.
READ MORE at WND.com
But if the government takes away the struggles, no lessons are learned. People will make the same mistakes over and over again because there are no consequences to those mistakes. Instead the "mistakes" become a way of life because, hey, they work.
In Wayne Allyn Root's sobering essay "Why the Greatest Depression of All Time Has Begun," he explains why a future economic crash would be endlessly worse than the Great Depression. "In 1929 children had hope for the future. Today they are hopeless, helpless and clueless – an entire generation that only knows drugs, gangs, rappers, government handouts, teen pregnancy – and it goes downhill from there."
Our only hope to regain our pride, our self-worth and our pioneer spirit is to roundly reject any and all government entitlements.
It's sink or swim time, folks. Laura would agree.
PATRICE LEWIS
By Patrice Lewis
June 04, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2011
Do you remember your Laura Ingalls Wilder books? I don't know about you, but these classic stories of a pioneer childhood give me a full-blown inferiority complex. Looking over what Laura's parents, Charles and Caroline (and later Laura and her husband) did in a normal day's work puts me to shame. With little more than a few hand tools and a lot of know-how, they created homes from bare dirt and grew their own food. They tried to depend on no one because often there was no one around to depend on. What they couldn't afford they did without. When they did borrow money, it often got them in trouble and they regretted it.
The Ingalls family tried never to be "beholden" to anyone. The only time they ever took a government handout was when they participated in the Homestead Act.
In the sequels to the "Little House" series, written by Rose Wilder Lane's heir, Roger Lea MacBride, Laura and her husband, Almanzo, moved to Missouri, bought land and spent many years making it into a productive farm. In these books, Laura speaks disparagingly about the Homestead Act. "It's a sin and a shame what the government in Washington did to folks, promising them free land," Laura says. "Free land indeed. It only shows that no good ever comes of getting something for nothing. It nearly ruined my pa, and look what it did to us. Every soul ought to pay his way in this world. It's the only honest and true way to live."
What would Laura have to say about the extensive welfare and entitlements rampant today?
In Thomas Sowell's column "Myths about the 'poverty-stricken,'" he says, "We don't need to send the country into bankruptcy, in the name of the poor, by spending trillions of dollars on people who are not poor, and who could take care of themselves. The poor have been used as human shields behind which the expanding welfare state can advance."
And why, any sane person should ask, would the government want to expand the welfare state? What good are millions of welfare people to the government? What kind of money trail should we follow?
"The goal," continues Sowell, "is not to keep the poor from starving but to create dependency, because dependency translates into votes for politicians who play Santa Claus. … 'Entitlement' is just a fancy word for dependency." [emphasis added]
I see this dependency as one of the major stumbling blocks against this country ever regaining the independent pioneer spirit we once possessed. Entitlements and the dependency it creates are bringing this nation to its knees, both financially and morally. Indeed, for millions of people, it has already done so.
READ MORE at WND.com
Posts
All Comments
