Obama Revealed

Townhall.com ^ | July 17, 2012 | Neal Boortz

Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 3:21:21 PM by Kaslin

Last week, Dear Ruler paraded around the country declaring that we needed to raise taxes on the evil rich people earning more than $250,000 a year. As many of you know, this means tax increases on almost one million households that report business income on their personal tax returns – or, in other words, a tax increase on over one million small jobs-producing American businesses. Obama claims that these people don’t need that money and it is a fallacy to believe that this will impact small businesses or job creation. The reality is that Obama has no clue how these small businesses work, and whether or not they “need” that money. It is not the government’s, and certainly not Obama’s role to determine how much of the money a small business earns that business actually “needs.”

Obama managed to top things off in grand style with a speech last Friday in Roanoke, Virginia. In this speech our Dear Ruler showed his complete disdain and outright animosity toward free enterprise with one now very well publicized utterance:

“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Really? Obama said that? Hopefully, at this point, you’re not shocked. But let me give you the context for that remark, because much of that is equally as galling. Here’ the entire quote:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

So … small businessman! How does that sit with you? You took your money and put it at risk. You worked perhaps as many as 80 hours a week to get things running. You had your ups and downs, but you persevered. Vacations? Are you kidding? Maybe it was five years into your new business venture before you ever took a vacation. Every penny you could scrounge up … every spare minute you could find … all went into your business. While others believed that their role was simply to do their nine-to-five bit five days a week for someone else, you had another game plan --- and it worked. Here you are with your successful small business. You employ perhaps a dozen people or so. You take vacations now. You might even have a vacation time-share on the coast. You just bought a new car for the first time in your life. You’re thinking that you’ve done pretty good chasing that American dream, and you’re justifiably proud of yourself. Then along comes Barack Obama to tell you that this business you sweated over for so many years? Well … you didn’t build that.

Does that work for you?

Let’s delve a little deeper in Obama’s remarks.

Dear Ruler tells us “There was a great teacher in your life.” Right – there very well may have been. But that teacher is, in her own right, a businesswoman. Like most every other college student, that teacher went to college in order to develop a skill to put to use in our free market. Her’s (or his) would be a business of one employee perhaps, but a business nonetheless. The teacher is a businesswoman with a product to sell; her knowledge and her teaching skills. She takes that product to the marketplace to find a buyer; perhaps a government school system, or a private school. She might even begin a tutoring service operating out of an office in a business complex. The businesswoman/teacher is then free to sell her product to whomever she wishes. Perhaps income will be her motivation; perhaps location. Whatever the motivation, she decides when and to who she, as a businesswoman, will sell her product; and when she will withdraw that product from the market to seek greener pastures. She’s not there solely to make something happen for someone else. She’s there to earn a living, just as is the businessman. She didn’t “give” anything to her students. She sold her services to those students and their parents eager for them to be educated.

But let’s move past the teacher thing … and look more closely at that “somebody else made that happen” line. Just who is Obama referring to? Just who helps someone build a business? First you might have the bank that provides the business loan. There, again, you have a private entity with a product to sell … cash. The budding businessman needs that cash. So the bank sells the cash to the businessman – at a markup -- or interest. The businessman then agrees to pay for the product – the cash – plus the interest over a period of time. Here were two businesses working together in the free market. One needed the cash; the other had the cash. An agreement was made to buy and to sell. Businessmen engaged in free enterprise. That’s what made that happen. The bank didn’t just come along to make the successful business happen. Instead, the bank merely engaged in commerce with the entrepreneur.

Maybe Obama is talking about the workers the businessman hired to manufacture or create the product he wished to sell. Yes .. those people helped to build the business as well. But once again, we’re talking about businessmen engaging in commerce. The worker had a skill; perhaps in information technology, or marketing. Maybe it was just good old hard labor. Whatever it was, the employee was a businessman with a skill that he bargained and sold to the other businessman to be used in growing a business. The government didn’t assign that worker to the businessman .. it was all a free and voluntary association in a free market economy. This is not a situation where the worker made the business happen for the businessman. The relationship between an employer and an employee is that of two people engaged in commerce. One with a product to sell, the other with a need for that product. Supply and demand. Commerce happens. The government’s role? In relation to the agreement between employer and employee the government’s principal role is to enforce contracts and adjudicate contracts disputes.

Obama – again – grew up hating capitalism. He was taught by his father and mother, and by his mother’s subsequent companions, that people became successful in free enterprise environments only by exploiting others. Obama sees every successful and wealthy businessman as someone living off of the spoils of a system that victimized those at the lower end of the income scale --- and he sees it as his job to make things right by taking money from the evil rich – who, after all, don’t need it – and giving it to his voter base.

Hopefully this time Caesar Obammus has jumped yet another shark. There are many successful businessmen out there who deeply resent Obama’s assertion that they owe their successes to someone other than themselves and their customers. They now clearly see Obama as a threat. Certainly Obama’s myrmidons will be no more eager to vote for him after his inane comments than they were before. We can hope, though, that Obama’s disdain for and complete lack of understanding of entrepreneurship will shake a few independents off their couches.

How to Create an Underclass

Acton Institute ^ | July 16, 2012 | Joe Carter

Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 7:19:53 AM by markomalley

Several years ago economist Walter Williams explained “How Not to Be Poor”:

Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior.

Williams is right—it’s not rocket science. Yet many Americans are shocked to discover that life choices are often (though certainly not always) the most determinative factor in the financial security of both individuals and families. Some people, particularly on the political and cultural left, are even offended by the idea that promotion of bourgeois institutions like marriage might be the key to entering—and staying in—the middle class.

But the evidence has become so hard to ignore that even the New York Times is being forced to acknowledge the obvious. This weekend, Jason DeParle wrote a lengthy article highlighting how a primary cause of class division in this country is based on who gets—and stays—married:

Estimates vary widely, but scholars have said that changes in marriage patterns — as opposed to changes in individual earnings — may account for as much as 40 percent of the growth in certain measures of inequality. Long a nation of economic extremes, the United States is also becoming a society of family haves and family have-nots, with marriage and its rewards evermore confined to the fortunate classes.

“It is the privileged Americans who are marrying, and marrying helps them stay privileged,” said Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University.

About 41 percent of births in the United States occur outside marriage, up sharply from 17 percent three decades ago. But equally sharp are the educational divides, according to an analysis by Child Trends, a Washington research group. Less than 10 percent of the births to college-educated women occur outside marriage, while for women with high school degrees or less the figure is nearly 60 percent.

Long concentrated among minorities, motherhood outside marriage now varies by class about as much as it does by race. It is growing fastest in the lower reaches of the white middle class — among women like Ms. Schairer who have some postsecondary schooling but no four-year degree.

While many children of single mothers flourish (two of the last three presidents had mothers who were single during part of their childhood), a large body of research shows that they are more likely than similar children with married parents to experience childhood poverty, act up in class, become teenage parents and drop out of school.

In other words, being the child of a single mother means that you are likely to do the opposite of what will keep you out of poverty.

Unfortunately, society is now much less concerned about the future of these children than we are about not hurting the feelings of single mothers. We’re often told that we should not judge single moms because we do not know their circumstances—and to some extent that is true.

But while we do not want to return to the days when single mothers are demonized, we also need to stop treating them as if they are morally and intellectually incapacitated. Single mothers must be treated with the same dignity owed to all adults, which requires holding them responsible for their choices and actions.

Having been raised by a single mom, I understand and empathize with the hardships of being an unmarried parent. But I also recognize that many of the choices my own mother made (e.g., romantic attachments to men who were morally and financially unreliable) were the reason we lived in poverty for most of my childhood.

Such destructive personal choices often lead to negative outcomes for one’s children, as some of the women in the Times‘ story are finding:

Ms. Schairer has trouble explaining, even to herself, why she stayed so long with a man who she said earned little, berated her often and did no parenting. They lived with family (his and hers) and worked off and on while she hoped things would change. “I wanted him to love me,” she said. She was 25 when the breakup made it official: she was raising three children on her own.

Single mothers, however, are only half—and often the more visible half—of the problem with broken families. Absent and negligent fathers, especially those who are able but unwilling to support their children, should bear the brunt of society’s ire.

Too many men today believe their role as parents is optional or contingent on their ability to live the lifestyle they want. If they move on to a second marriage, they believe their duty is to expend their financial and emotional resources on their new family. This “second family comes first” principle has become the accepted norm in a culture that is willing to be satisfied that some kids, any kids, are being taken care of by a father in the home. If a man won’t provide for all his children, says society, the least we can do is be grateful he is caring for his latest brood.

But that’s not good enough. And neither are discussions about “income inequality” that present charts and graphs about economic activity but fail to acknowledge the underlying pathologies that are widening the earnings gap. The economic problems of America are primarily the price we pay for our social problems. Unless we begin to treat economic and social issues as a whole, rather than as nonoverlaping magisteria, we’re going to continue to be a nation that incentivizes the creation of a an underclass.

Nobody Else Made It Happen, Mr. President (American Thinker)

July 17, 2012

 

By Rob Miller

President Obama unwittingly defined himself as clueless about business in Roanoke late last week:

If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.

And of course, since you did nothing to build your business, it belongs to "the people" -- along with any wealth or profit derived from it. Pretty much what Lenin had to say about the matter, if you recall.

The president is obviously clueless about what it takes to start a business from scratch, having never done anything remotely like that, since his career has consisted entirely of suckling at the government teat.

But having done it myself a few times, perhaps I should take a stab at enlightening him, and those who unfortunately think like him. The process is quite different from being a well-connected campaign donor who tosses together a green energy scam like Solyndra and can depend on government largess to fund it as a kickback for services rendered.

First, you need to take a look at the marketplace and develop a skill, a service, a product, or an idea that people are willing to pay for. Some people obtain these by working for others, figuring out how to do what the company they're now working for does better, saving up some of their hard-earned money, rolling the dice, and stepping off into space without the safety net of a guaranteed paycheck. Others develop something over time as a part-time income until they feel they have enough business developed and enough of a rep to go it alone, or in partnership with others.

No matter the case, it involves risking all of your assets in exchange for a shot at financial independence. People deny themselves as they squirrel away capital, hit their credit cards, or borrow the money, usually on their homes.

It is one of life's solemn and sometimes scary moments when someone pushes a loan application or an equipment or office lease at you, and you're wondering if you're going to end up being a failure.

You'll always wonder in the beginning whether you did the right thing.

If the business is to be successful, you work long, hard hours, with no guarantee that anything will come of it. If you run a store, you have to be concerned with things like inventory, shoplifting, and cutthroat price-cutting from your larger, already established competitors. If you run a service business, you work with no guarantee you'll be paid for your efforts until the deal closes and your client's check clears the bank.

In the beginning, unless you start out with a boatload of money, you do everything, and if you screw up, it comes out of your pocket -- no one else's. Aside from the actual day-to-day work your business entails, you do the books, you keep the records and pay the fees government requires, you answer the phones, you make the decisions on advertising and marketing, you chase down new business, you deal with vendors and do the ordering (an art in itself), you deal with sales reps seeking to sell you things you usually don't need, you pay the bills, and you sweep up.

In exchange for these fun-filled 15- to 18-hour days, you might make a profit after a few months and be able to start paying your bills out of the proceeds.

If you do all these things well, your business is one of the minority that survives its first year, and you've made enough money to expand a bit, you may be able to hire employees. Yes, at that point you actually might need to supervise and direct others aside from yourself. Make the right hiring decisions, and ideally, you begin to make more money as you put a business team together. Make the wrong one, and aside from losing money, even coming in to work can become hell.

Aside from taking on new jobs like payroll accounting, paying the taxes, paying for worker's compensation insurance, and filing the numerous reports and paperwork government requires, you also take on the job of human resource head and complaint department. Some of your employees will be a joy to work with, and it will be a pleasure to reward them appropriately. Others will simply have you shaking your head in disgust.

In the end, after a few years, if you didn't make too many mistakes at the outset, if you picked the right kind of business at the right time and place, and if fortune favors you, you may have a successful business that provides you and your family a comfortable living.

You'll still work a lot harder than the average 9-to-5 employee, but by then it will have become second nature to you, and you'll be a lot more comfortable walking the tightrope. Usually, you'll wonder why you didn't go into business for yourself years earlier than you did.

Moreover, you'll have the reward of knowing you gambled and won, that you built something with your own hands that belongs to you -- something that you may be able to leave to your children. And that's something no one can take away from you.

Unless it's a wannabe commissar like Barack Obama...who resents you, deep down, because you had the courage and ability to do something he could never have done in a thousand years.

The only way a Barack Obama can get what you have is to steal it. Which is exactly why he's telling people it doesn't belong to you in the first place.

Yes, it really is that simple.

Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His work has appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, American Thinker, Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace, and other publications.

Free Enterprise (What is it? from AEI)

 

6 charts that show the Welfare State run amok (From AEI)

Original articleJames Pethokoukis July 11, 2012, 1:40 pm

The original purpose of Medicaid was to provide improved healthcare access for poor people, while not turning the safety net into a trap. Under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, Medicaid will be greatly expanded beyond what Congress originally intended.

In fact, as these charts show, it has already expanded beyond what Congress surely originally envisioned and, in the process, has created a terrible fiscal problem for the United States. (These charts and graphics come from a briefing today here at AEI, conducted by Gary Alexander, secretary of public welfare for Pennsylvania.)

A few scary factoids:

– In the 1960s, there were 18 workers per Medicaid recipient. Today that number is 2.5.

– The number of Americans on disability has risen 19% faster than jobs created during this recovery.

– There are just 1.2 private sector workers per 1 person on welfare or working for government.

– There are now just 1.65 employed persons in private sector per 1 person on welfare assistance.

Check out the charts and graphics for yourself:

1. Fewer workers and their tax payments have to support more and more Medicaid recipients.

2. The number of takers is now approaching the number of makers.

3. Medicaid and other welfare enrollment has exploded.

4. Medicaid enrollment is growing faster than economy.

5. Medicaid spending? You ain’t seen nothing yet.

6. Disability enrollees have exploded and are rising faster than job creation.

These charts show an out-of-control welfare state that is about to get even bigger, increasing both budget costs and dependency.

CBO: The wealthly pay 70 percent of taxes

Washington Times ^ | 7/10/2012 | Stephan Dinan

Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2012 6:33:01 AM by markomalley

Wealthy Americans earn about 50 percent of all income but pay nearly 70 percent of the federal tax burden, according to the latest analysis Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office — though the agency said the very richest have seen their share of taxes fall the last few years.

CBO looked at 2007 through 2009 and found the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid just three-tenths of a percent of the total tax burden, while the richest 20 percent paid 67.9 percent of taxes.

The top 1 percent, who President Obama has made a target during the presidential campaign, earns 13.4 percent of all pre-tax income, but paid 22.3 percent of taxes in 2009, CBO said. But that share was down 4.4 percentage points from 2007, CBO said in a finding likely to bolster Mr. Obama’s calls for them to pay more by letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire.

The big losers over the last few years were the rest of the well-off, especially those in the top fifth, who saw their tax burdens go up.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

The CBO report is here and associated Excel file with supplemental tables is here.

The numbers reported in the Times are for total tax liabilities. Income tax is a whole lot more dramatic:

In regards to income tax, the bottom 20% of income earners earn 5.1% of the money earned in the country. The bottom 60% (the lower three quintiles) earn 29.6% of the money earned in the country. The top 20% earn 50.8% of the income earned in the country and the top 1% earn 13.4% of the income in the country. On the other hand, the lowest quintile (bottom 20%), cumulatively, contributed -6.6% (a NEGATIVE 6.6%) of all the revenue collected by individual income tax. The lowest 60% (the lowest three quintiles), cumulatively, contributed -7.4% (a NEGATIVE 7.4%) of all the revenue collected by individual income tax. The top quintile (the top 20%), cumulatively, contributed 94.1% of all the revenue collected by individual income tax. The top 1%, cumulatively, contributed 38.7%.

What could be unfair about that? Sounds like it's time to soak the rich more. (/sarc)

The Education Blob (John Stossel–Town Hall)

July 4, 2012

The Education Blob

By John Stossel

7/4/2012

Since progressives want government to run health care, let's look at what government management did to K-12 education. While most every other service in life has gotten better and cheaper, American education remains stagnant.

Spending has tripled! Why no improvement? Because K-12 education is a virtual government monopoly -- and monopolies don't improve.

In every other sector of the economy, market competition forces providers to improve constantly. It's why most things get better -- often cheaper, too (except when government interferes, as in health care).

Politicians claim that education and health care are different -- too important to leave to market competition. Patients and parents aren't real consumers because they don't have the expertise to know which hospital or school is best. That's why they must be centrally planned by government "experts."

Those experts have been in charge for years. School reformers call them the "Blob." Jeanne Allen of the Center for Education Reform says that attempts to improve the government monopoly have run "smack into federations, alliances, departments, councils, boards, commissions, panels, herds, flocks and convoys that make up the education industrial complex, or the Blob. Taken individually, they were frustrating enough, each with its own bureaucracy, but taken as a whole they were (and are) maddening in their resistance to change. Not really a wall -- they always talk about change -- but more like quicksand, or a tar pit where ideas slowly sink."

The Blob claims teachers are underpaid. But today American teachers average more than $50,000 a year. Teachers' hourly wages exceed what most architects, accountants and nurses make.

The Blob constantly demands more money, but tripling spending and vastly increasing the ratio of staff to student have brought no improvement. When the Blob is in control, waste and indifference live on and on.

The Blob claims that public education is "the great equalizer." Rich and poor and different races mix and learn together. It's a beautiful concept. But it is a lie. Rich parents buy homes in neighborhoods with better schools.

As a result, public -- I mean, government -- schools are now more racially segregated than private schools. One survey found that public schools were significantly more likely to be almost entirely white or entirely minority. Another found that at private schools, students of different races were more likely to sit together.

The Blob's most powerful argument is that poor people need government-run schools. How could poor people possibly afford tuition?

Well, consider some truly destitute places. James Tooley spends most of his time in the poorest parts of Africa, India and China. Those countries copied America's "free public education," and Tooley wanted to see how that's worked out. What he learned is that in India and China, where kids outperform American kids on tests, it's not because they attend the government's free schools. Government schools are horrible. So even in the worst slums, parents try to send their kids to private, for-profit schools.

How can the world's poorest people afford tuition? And why would they pay for what their governments offer for free?

Tooley says parents with meager resources still sacrifice to send their kids to private schools because the private owner does something that's virtually impossible in government schools: replace teachers who do not teach. Government teachers in India and Africa have jobs for life, just like American teachers. Many sleep on the job. Some don't even show up for work.

As a result, says Tooley, "the majority of (poor) schoolchildren are in private school." Even small villages have as many as six private schools, "and these schools outperform government schools at a fraction of the teacher cost."

As in America, government officials in those countries scoff at private schools and parents who choose them. A woman who runs government schools in Nigeria calls such parents "ignoramuses." They aren't -- and thanks to competition, their children won't be, either.

Low-income Americans are far richer than the poor people of China, India and Africa. So if competitive private education can work in Beijing, Calcutta and Nairobi, it can work in the United States.

We just need to get around the Blob.

John Stossel

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.

©Creators Syndicate

Wal-Mart vs. The Morons

Link
6/25/2012 | Edited by Ib Jensen

Posted on Monday, June 25, 2012 3:58:26 PM by IbJensen

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world's largest private employer, and most speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years.

8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.

11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth's population is approximately 7.3 Billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart.

You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy.

To: President Obama, his January, 2013 replacement, and all 535 voting members of the Legislature:

It is now official that the majority of you are corrupt morons:

a.. The U.S. Postal Service was establishedin 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

b.. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.

c.. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.

d.. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

e.. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.

f.. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

g.. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it rightand it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.

AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??

Maybe it will end up in the e-mails of some of our 'duly elected' (they never read anything) and their staffwill clue them in on how Americans feel.

I know what's wrong. We have lost our minds to "Political Correctness" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Someone please tell me what the HELL's wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!!!

We're "broke" & can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.,???????????

In the past months we have provided aid to Haiti , Brazil, and Turkey..And Pakistan........previous home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks…

AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children being raised in foster homes, elderly going without'needed' meds, and mentally ill without treatment and roaming the streets as 'homeless' -etc,etc.

Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries. Sad isn't it?

---

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: centralsocialistgovt; failure; incompetence; Click to Add Keyword

---

[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]

The large majority of Congress is grossly incompetent and are incapable of accomplishing anything significant. This worthless phony in the White Hut, his legions of White Hut staffers, the Congress, their overpaid staffers and the millions of bureaucrats that are killing America and destroying our lives and our savings need to get a gigantic wake-up call!

1 posted on Monday, June 25, 2012 3:58:33 PM by IbJensen

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse]

---

To: IbJensen

a.. The U.S. Postal Service was establishedin 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

Ben Franklin must be rolling over in his grave at the USPS service. Just think if Ben Franklin ran the USPS now... I bet it'd make money!!

2 posted on Monday, June 25, 2012 4:11:57 PM by ExCTCitizen (If we stay home in November '12, don't blame 0 for tearing up the CONSTITUTION!!)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

---

To: IbJensen

The problem is that once socialism invades the public conscience, it becomes impossible to shake it off without the resolve of a large portion of the population.

We’re on a social downswing. We’re heading to dictatorships and theocracies around the world.

Our Founders understood that it would take their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors to fix this country. They gave all of those, many of them dying broke, and this country became what it was.

It will take many lives through combat, strife, homelessness, and hunger. It will take sacrifice from our wallets. It will take the honor of patriots to turn this around. But only then will we reverse this course.

Otherwise, we’re going to continue to elect ineffectual pantywaists who kowtow to public opinion polls instead of listening to the wants and needs of their constituents.

Bill Whittle on ‘Fast and Furious’

The Democrat Party and their stooges in the media do not want YOU to know this!

 

Firewall with Bill Whittle: Why don’t you mind my own business?