| StockFetcher Forums · General Discussion · POLITICS GOES HERE | << 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 ... 76 >>Post Follow-up |
| johnpaulca 12,036 posts msg #108713 - Ignore johnpaulca |
11/7/2012 10:38:28 AM Market doesn't think so...we needed a day like today shake out the weak hands. |
| karennma 8,057 posts msg #108714 - Ignore karennma |
11/7/2012 10:43:06 AM NFLX is rockin' .. as usual. Always following a different drummer. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #109972 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
1/8/2013 4:18:44 PM Ignore/Old-News Strategy By Robert Ringer - Tuesday, January 8, 2013 Although many have long believed it to be a fait accompli, it became official last Thursday: The Republican Party died. Any notion that Republicans had finally learned their lesson and were ready to start acting like the party of small government, less spending, less regulation, and more individual freedom was quashed when they overwhelmingly reelected Barack Obama’s bootlicking valet, John Jellyfish Boehner, as Speaker of the House. Which means that, aside from the obvious problems associated with Boehner’s being in charge of the store, he remains second in the line of presidential succession! Can you imagine a President Boehner in the White House, scurrying about each day in an effort to carry out the wishes of his Dirty Dem masters? Republicans are the most predictable people on earth. Did anyone seriously doubt they would once again put John Boehner in a position to sell conservatives down the river? C’mon … please … it’s their M.O. Did anyone seriously doubt they would once again give away the store in “resolving” the phony fiscal-cliff crisis? And does anyone seriously doubt they will once again raise the debt ceiling to give Obama plenty of latitude to continue to increase spending — and, in so doing, increase, rather than decrease, the deficit and the national debt? The reality is that the debt ceiling will be raised again … and again … and again — with no meaningful cuts in government spending. Bad News Barry has already made that clear. And when Barry huffs and puffs, Republicans tremble and have a tendency to run for the nearest rest room. Of course, it doesn’t really matter whether or not Republicans once again accommodate Obama in his quest to transform America into a banana republic, because it’s pretty clear that he will, if necessary, simply hand down an executive order to raise the debt ceiling. And why not? If GOP wimps are willing to let him get away with it, he’s home free. Obama’s message is both clear and bold: “You want more spending cuts? Great, just so we offset them with higher taxes.” Huh? The man is a master at turning things upside down. If you cut spending, why do you need to raise taxes? If most Americans weren’t sleepwalking, they would be asking, “Why don’t we lower taxes and offset the decreased revenue with more spending cuts?” In just four years, Obama has succeeded in establishing a soft dictatorship right before our very eyes. But it would not have been possible without the cooperation of his Republican enablers. After all, these are the folks who forfeited two presidential elections by nominating McCain I and McCain II to run against Obama in 2008 and 2012. The same folks who have sent repeated messages to the Emperor of Envy that they will not challenge his dictatorial overreach, no matter how unconstitutional it may be. So, happy days are here again — hire more IRS agents, slam the printing presses into high gear, and continue to beg China for just one more fix. How long can all this last? Probably until the rioting begins, which will come, if at all, only after most people realize that even though they thought they were getting the best of the collectivist con, their money is worthless and their retirement prospects are nonexistent. All this has been brought to us via the Ignore/Old-News Strategy, which is similar to the New-Baseline Strategy. In my article on the latter topic a couple of years ago, I pointed out that the New-Baseline Strategy is the key to progressivism: Get a bill passed (e.g., Obamacare), establish a new baseline, then, in the future, restrict all debate to what the percentage of increase should be each year for that particular bill. And if anyone dares to oppose any increase in spending, vilify him as cruel and calloused, which almost never fails to bring him to his apologetic knees. And guess what? It works! It works because it is supported by humanoids noted for their small gonads, Styrofoam spines, and a strong desire to live like royalty off taxpayer money. Remember when Tricky Dick Nixon got caught with his political panties around his ankles? Oh, he put up a front for a while, but when the dastardly Democrats kept pressing forward with making Watergate a criminal issue, he thought the better of it, gave a Napoleonic salute to his nonexistent supporters from the steps of his presidential helicopter, then disappeared into the political sunset mumbling, “I’m not a crook.” Of course, all this was made easier by the fact that most Republicans actually joined forces with their Democratic masters in their campaign to destroy Nixon. But when Obama violates the Constitution, he doesn’t need to worry about getting the Nixon treatment. Whenever trouble looms on the horizon, he simply employs the Ignore/Old-News Strategy, which works in tandem with the New-Baseline Strategy. Got a problem with Benghazi-gate? Ignore it. Got a problem with Fast and Furious? Ignore it. Got a problem with your spiritual mentor being a notorious American hater? Ignore it. Got a problem with your birth certificate? Ignore it. Got a problem with millions of suffering civilians being angry over your giving Joe Biden and members of Congress pay raises? Ignore it. Then, as time passes, anyone who dares to bring up such toxic issues is shouted down as a partisan hate monger, a racist, or an enemy of the middleclass and admonished for bringing up issues that are “old news” (old news being defined as anything that happened more than a week ago). And once something is old news, no matter how criminal it may be, it’s no longer relevant, right? The Dems have it down to a science: Got a scandal? No problem. Simply ignore it, then, shortly thereafter, declare it to be “old news.” And since the Dirty Dems are masters at establishing new baselines, each new illegal act taken by Obama becomes accepted as the status quo. You may argue that Sinbama and his Forty Thieves are the epitome of evil, but you can’t deny that they’re brilliant at their craft: theft and deception. Now, shhh … not too loud. We wouldn’t want Republicans to discover that they are being laughed at. After all, they have to focus on how to once again raise the debt ceiling in a way that will fool low-information voters into believing they got big spending cuts in return. You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article: Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #110493 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
1/24/2013 7:17:50 PM The Dilemma: Lie or Lose By Robert Ringer - Thursday, January 24, 2013 Ah, my … how time flies when you’re having fun. It seems like yesterday that we were crying tears of hope and change. The hope is gone, but there are still plenty of tears over the change. How well I remember Thomas Friedman’s article in The New York Times during the 2008 presidential campaign titled “Who will tell the people?” Said Friedman, “We don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people.” Based on his words, I assume Friedman ended up not voting. Of course, by now everyone this side of Hugo Chavez realizes that the Kenyan guy who won is tough enough to tell the truth. It’s just that he chose not to, because he knew that the truth would have been a losing hand. Once in office, he was still tough enough to tell the truth, but, again, he chose not to because he knew it would impede his efforts to carry out his agenda. Then came the 2012 presidential race. I imagine most people naively believed that Obama couldn’t outdo his 2008 festival of fabrications, but he sure fooled them. This time around, he lied with a Madoffian style and grace that made people forget that his first term in office showcased the most failed presidency in U.S. history. But on the Republican side, it was a different story. The GOP thought they’d try something new, so they nominated a paper mache mannequin to run for president. Unfortunately, as one would expect from a mannequin, he couldn’t spell. He thought tough was spelled s-o-f-t. It was obvious from the outset that Mannequin Mitt was not going to stick his neck out and offer up even small morsels of truth. Establishment Republicans kept insisting that Romney was a man of character (Ann Coulter even gushed that he was a “Mormon square”), but, in the end, he couldn’t quite muster up the character to tell voters the truth. Too bad, because if he had, he probably would have won handily. Before the 2008 election, I wrote that no matter who you voted for, the moral and economic decline of the U.S. would continue, though faster with Barack Obama at the controls rather than John McMush. I also said that the next president would preside over more and bigger disasters than any president in U.S. history. I was right on both counts. But I also wrote that since there was no realistic way to solve any of the nation’s major economic problems, whoever won the election would receive most of the blame. In this case, I was, for the most part, wrong. True, after a year or two, several million people were jarred out of their decades-long slumber and realized they had been scammed by Commie Obammie. But most people who voted for BHO happily went back for seconds — unemployment benefits, disability payments, food stamps, etc. In fairness, BHO sent the American public many clear messages about his intentions, but it’s hard to process information when your mind is focused on rushing out to pick up a fresh supply of food stamps. In any event, it doesn’t matter what the Duplicitous Despot says if most people pretend as though they didn’t hear it. But forget about Obama. We already know what to expect from a Saul Alinsky disciple. The question is, which Republican will finally step forward and tell the people the truth? Unfortunately, in today’s morally decadent America, politicians realize that the constituency for cutting entitlements is a small minority, so they have only two choices: lie or lose. Just ask Ron Paul, who was brushed aside by the media (including Fox News!) and the Republican Party for consistently refusing to deceive voters. Conclusion: Best to forget about politicians and focus on doing what you, as an individual, can do to combat tyranny. And the first step toward that end is to acknowledge the reality that BHO is not just another far-left guy like FDR, LBJ, or Jimmy Carter. None of them had a Marxist agenda. True, FDR pushed for dictatorial rule, but when Congress and the Supreme Court let him know they were drawing a constitutional line, he backed off. Do you really believe Barack Obama will ever back off? Wake up, America! It’s not in his playbook. The clock is ticking on the American Empire as the “dreams from my father” continue to become ever more entrenched. Gun confiscation, Obamacare, and runaway inflation, to name but a few of BHO’s atrocities — are moving ahead full steam. Oh … and so, too, is the possibility of a third, fourth, and fifth term — and beyond! — for the media-invented president whose arrogance now has him focused on making 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue his permanent address. Laugh at your own peril. After all, in a “free” country you have a right to go on believing whatever you want to believe. But, at the same time, you should recognize that reality is not discriminatory. Nature does not accept ignorance as an excuse for harboring false beliefs. It metes out negative consequences just as harshly to a person who is well-meaning but misinformed (or naïve) as to one who is malevolent and stubborn. Regardless, the one thing none of us can complain about is boredom. Thanks to Bolshevik Barry, we do live in exciting times. You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article: Copyright © 2013 Robert Ringer ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #110590 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
1/26/2013 6:38:08 PM THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ! Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act. By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.) So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #110900 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
2/2/2013 6:52:33 PM Who’s the Purist of Them All? By Robert Ringer - Tuesday, January 29, 2013 Today’s galling criminal behavior in Washington has brought back some old memories for me. With the publication of my book Restoring the American Dream, which openly promoted the Libertarian Party, I created quite a stir in libertarian circles. So much so that I was asked to give the keynote address at the 1979 Libertarian Party Presidential Nominating Convention. Ed Clark was the Libertarian Party presidential nominee that year and David Koch (of Koch Brothers fame) was his running mate. The master of ceremonies was actor Orson Bean, who years later would become the father-in-law of Andrew Breitbart (who was ten-years-old at the time!). Small world, indeed. All the attention was pretty heady stuff for a young, newly minted anarchist like me. There was no doubt in my naïve mind that it was just a matter of time until the Libertarian Party would overwhelm the Demopublican Party and put an end to government tyranny. It was also at the 1979 convention that a young medical doctor by the name of Ron Paul introduced himself to me. Little did I know that he was to become a beacon of hope for millions of Americans over the next three decades. A few weeks after the convention I invited a number of noteworthy libertarians to a dinner party at my home. With my newfound enthusiasm for libertarianism, I wanted to pick the brains of some of the smartest libertarian minds in the country. At one point, I said to John Hospers, the Libertarian Party’s first presidential candidate back in 1972, “Given the realities of human nature, even if the Libertarian Party someday got control of the government, wouldn’t libertarian officeholders become just as corrupt as Democrats and Republicans?” To which he responded, “Yes, it’s human nature. But it might give us twenty-five years or more of much smaller government and more freedom before they reached the level of corruption that the Democrats and Republicans are at today, which would give us time to try to come up with a better system.” It was refreshing to hear an ideological giant like Hospers talk in realistic terms. But, unfortunately, the Libertarian Party never got off the ground, so my hypothetical question became irrelevant. And that very night, as I listened to the heated intellectual sniping and debating over dinner, I began to suspect, for the first time, that the Libertarian Party might not make it. At one point, in response to one of my guests extolling the virtues of Murray Rothbard’s anarchist beliefs — specifically alluding to his advocacy of private police forces — Nathaniel Branden tersely shot back that Murray Rothbard would be the first one to complain about a lack of police protection if he were in trouble. As I’ve watched the Libertarian Party struggle to survive over the years, I’ve often thought about that evening back in 1979. Even in 2012, when probably half the population had awakened to the reality that the U.S. government was an out-of-control criminal enterprise, Gary Johnson — a two-time state governor — garnered only 1 percent of the vote for the Libertarian Party. That was just shy of Ed Clark’s 1.1 percent three decades earlier! Talk about stagnant growth. I have long believed that 40 percent or more of the voting public is, at heart, libertarian, even if they aren’t all conscious of it. But the problem is that the message never gets through to them because both uppercase and lowercase libertarians are too busy bickering over who is the most pure. Like children throwing temper tantrums, they constantly attack other libertarians for not being true libertarians — or true anarchists. To hear many of them talk, they would have you believe that only they are ideologically pure and that every other libertarian is flawed. Their childish arrogance sometimes makes me want to yawn. Which brings me to the political bomb John Hospers dropped on true-believing libertarians, just prior to the 2004 election, in the form of an “Open Letter to All Libertarians.” Said Hospers, in part: The American electorate is not yet psychologically prepared for a completely libertarian society. A transition to such a society takes time and effort, and involves altering the mind-set of most Americans, who labor under a plethora of economic fallacies and political misconceptions. … If the election is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make the difference as to who wins in various critical “Battle Ground” states and therefore the presidency itself. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in 2004. And that is why I believe voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do. Hospers’ words caused self-anointed “purists” to go ballistic. But even though I, too, disagreed with his position, I resisted the temptation to fall into the “not-pure-enough” trap. I mean, if you label a liberty legend like John Hospers impure, who in the world qualifies as being pure enough? From my firsthand experience, the answer is no one. We all make mistakes, but if we bring out the guillotine every time a strong advocate of liberty says or does something ill advised — or that we don’t agree with — who will be left? As Hospers pointed out in his letter, even the mother of objectivism, Ayn Rand, once opined that she wouldn’t mind if taxes were 80 percent “if you need it for defense.” Was Ayn Rand impure? Yes. But so is every other liberty advocate I’ve ever met. And how about those two young fellows at the 1979 Libertarian Party convention — Ron Paul and Robert Ringer? I have it on good authority that both of them are strong pro-life advocates. Does believing in the sanctity of life, which is a basic tenet of libertarianism — qualify anarchist-leaning libertarians to challenge their ideological credentials? In a perfect world, I’d be an anarchist not only in theory, but in reality. But the rational side of me tells me that anarchism would open the door to my being victimized by the same criminals who now rule us. With anarchism, there would be no laws to even slow them down. That’s why I reluctantly believe that we need laws to protect our lives and property. Unfortunately, most of today’s laws violate our lives and property. The real issue is man’s imperfection. It is important to be vigilant about reminding ourselves not to inadvertently stray toward tyranny. But, while doing so, let’s not label those who are 90 percent in agreement with us as “not pure enough.” Lambasting bootlickers like John McCain, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, or Orrin Hatch — sure, they’re fair game. But accusing people like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, or Allen West of not being pure enough is fodder for the barbarians. Give me a break. If someone favors getting rid of unemployment benefits, food stamps, minimum-wage laws, and the income tax, I’m happy to have them on my side. We can debate things like Roe v. Wade and how to best provide for a national defense at a later date, but right now those who sincerely believe that liberty is preferable to tyranny would do well to join forces and focus on the important job ahead — destroying the moral barbarians who have pillaged America. The habit of trashing people because they don’t meet one’s arbitrary standards for purity is a result of both arrogance and ignorance. And arrogance of the ignorant is a human flaw that I, for one, am incapable of tolerating. You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article: Copyright © 2013 Robert Ringer ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #112573 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
4/1/2013 6:45:51 PM "If we concentrated on the really important stuff in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles" By Junius P. Long Food For Thought If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally ...you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots. If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots. If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but the government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots. If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor or check out a library book, but not to vote who runs the government ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots. If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots. If, in the largest city on the East coast, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots. If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots. If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots. If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested “homes”... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing and free cell phones ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots. If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can’t find work ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots. If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself with a gun in your home makes you more "safe" according to the government ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #112574 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
4/1/2013 6:50:59 PM What's the saying? Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.. America truly is the Greatest Country in the World. By: Kitty Werthmann What I am about to tell you is something you've probably never heard or will ever read in history books. I believe that I am an eyewitness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We elected him by a landslide - 98% of the vote.. I've never read that in any American publications. Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force. In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25% inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates.. Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn't want to work; there simply weren't any jobs. My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people - about 30 daily. The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were fighting each other.. Blocks and blocks of cities like Vienna , Linz , and Graz were destroyed. The people became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted. We looked to our neighbour on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in power since 1933. We had been told that they didn't have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living. Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group -- Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria .. We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back. Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler... We were overjoyed, and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed. After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service. Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn't support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage. Hitler Targets Education - Eliminates Religious Instruction for Children: Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler's picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn't pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," and had physical education. Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail. The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free. We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had. My mother was very unhappy. When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn't do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun - no sports, and no political indoctrination. I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing. Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler. It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn't exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy. Equal Rights Hits Home: In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn't work, you didn't get a ration card, and if you didn't have a card, you starved to death. Women who stayed home to raise their families didn't have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men. Soon after this, the draft was implemented. It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labour corps. During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys. They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labour corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines. When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat. Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labour corps and into military service. Hitler Restructured the Family Through Daycare: When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children.. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had. Health Care and Small Business Suffer Under Government Controls: Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna . After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.. As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families.. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing. We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables. Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn't meet all the demands. Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control. We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it. "Mercy Killing" Redefined: In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps . The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated. So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work. I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van.. I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months. They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness. As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia. The Final Steps - Gun Laws: Next came gun registration.. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily. No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up. Totalitarianism didn't come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria .Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom. After World War II, Russian troops occupied Austria . Women were raped, preteen to elderly. The press never wrote about this either.. When the Soviets left in 1955, they took everything that they could, dismantling whole factories in the process. They sawed down whole orchards of fruit, and what they couldn't destroy, they burned. We called it The Burned Earth. Most of the population barricaded themselves in their houses. Women hid in their cellars for 6 weeks as the troops mobilized. Those who couldn't, paid the price. There is a monument in Vienna today, dedicated to those women who were massacred by the Russians. This is an eye witness account. "It's true..those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity. America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don't Let Freedom Slip Away "After America, There is No Place to Go" Please forward this message to other voters who may not have it. After America, There is No Place to Go" The author of this article lives in South Dakota and is very active in attempting to maintain our freedom. I encourage everybody to read this article and pass it along. I see so many parallels in this country, are we going to sit by and watch it happen? Spread the word; also contact your congressional reps; vote them out if they don't do what they should. If you don't want to be bothered, then you're part of the problem! Google Kitty Werthmann and you will see articles and video. |
| Mactheriverrat 3,172 posts msg #112576 - Ignore Mactheriverrat modified |
4/1/2013 9:30:22 PM Sad but True https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpn0vh2Rj0Y |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #113247 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
5/9/2013 4:09:34 PM The Holy Grail of Power Schemes: Obamacare By Robert Ringer - Tuesday, May 7, 2013 It seems like just yesterday that liberty lovers were doggedly trying to get the attention of low-information voters who were oblivious to the horrors on the Obamacare horizon. But now, as the long-concealed facts about Obamacare are surfacing at an accelerating rate, more and more free-ride fools are starting to get it: Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with increasing the power of politicians over their subjects. Obamacare accomplishes this by being a massive redistribution-of-wealth scheme. Political hack Donald Berwick, whom Obama named as the Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2010, made this clear to the sleepwalking public back in 2008 when he said, “Any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must — must — redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.” Nasty, but honest. Why is it important to understand that Obamacare has nothing to do with providing people with affordable healthcare — that it’s nothing more than a redistribution-of-wealth scheme aimed at increasing government power? Because so long as politicians and the media are successful in peddling the fairy tale that Obamacare is a serious program that addresses the healthcare needs of every citizen, people will continue to obediently march toward their unaffordable healthcare deaths — as in, death panels. Gay marriage … abortion on demand … illegal immigration … Benghazi-gate … Obama’s vacations and golf matches … Fast and Furious — all interesting topics to ponder and debate. But they are nothing more than distractions from the central issue of government tyranny: increasing power over the citizenry through the lure of redistribution-of-wealth schemes. Of course, none of this is new. I have long maintained that Barack Obama gets far too much credit for transforming America into a nation of socialist tyranny. The Presidential Imposter is merely an accomplished facilitator, and the sad truth is that if he had never risen from the community-organizing sewers, we still would have arrived at where we find ourselves today — just not as quickly. We were moving toward more government power and less individual freedom quite nicely even under Ronald Reagan, let alone George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. While professing to be conservatives, Republican presidents and congressmen have been passing legislation to redistribute wealth for decades with nary a pause. That’s right, both Democrats and Republicans have been leading us down the road to serfdom for at least a hundred years. February marked the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 16th Amendment (giving Congress the power to tax incomes), the Holy Grail of increasing government power through the redistribution of wealth. It’s no coincidence that the Federal Reserve, the perfect complement to the income tax, was also created in 1913. Taxing and printing beat two aces every time. Since the vast majority of countries throughout recorded history have been ruled by a dictatorship of one kind or another, people unhappy with their financial status have never been much of a problem. They were, and still are, simply jailed or extinguished. Think Saddam, Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon — all the way back to Rome or even ancient Egypt. What made America unique was that the Founding Fathers set up a government whose main purpose was not to redistribute people’s wealth but protect it. Almost paradoxically, however, they also instituted free speech, which gave people the right to openly demand higher incomes. Because they clearly understood human nature, the Founders were skeptical about their experiment in self-government. They realized that, human nature being what it is, no matter how much workers are compensated, they will always claim to be underpaid. But it’s worse than that. Even if everyone’s wages were tripled overnight, the triplees would still complain — as they do now — about the “unequal distribution of wealth.” Of course, in a free society, the demand for higher wages is legitimate free speech. But the demand for redistribution of wealth is a call for politicians to violate the Constitution and take people’s property by force rather than protect it. Even so, not one conservative member of Congress has ever dared to state the obvious — that there is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about unequal distribution of wealth. Conversely, redistribution of wealth — even to a small degree — is inherently immoral. This lack of moral courage on the part of politicians is why redistribution of wealth has long been an accepted part of our modern socialist fabric. All the Kenyan Kommie wants to do is move things along at a faster pace. Which is where Obamacare comes in. It is the boldest, most brazen scheme to redistribute wealth in American history. Unfortunately, as we approach January 1, 2014, the day Obamacare will begin to grab the entertainment-addicted public by the wallet, it appears unlikely that anyone will do anything to try to stop it. It’s true that more and more people are becoming aware of some of the nastier aspects of Obamacare, e.g., excise taxes on medical devices, penalties for individuals and employers who do not purchase government-approved health insurance, and a 40 percent tax on so-called Cadillac insurance plans. And the talk-radio guys are warning them that hundreds of new taxes, penalties, restrictions, and rules are on the way. Optimists believe there is a chance that the whole noxious Obamacare scheme will implode before it kicks in full bore on January 1. I’d like to believe that, but I’d feel more confident if those optimists were on television every night hammering home the most important thing about Obamacare — that it is, at its core, totally unconstitutional, not to mention the fact that it has nothing to do with making healthcare affordable to more people. But for some reason, no one seems to care about the fact that it’s unconstitutional — not even the chief justice of the Supreme Court. And certainly not Republicans in Congress, because, if they did, they would feel duty bound to defund Obamacare on constitutional grounds. Sometimes I feel very lonely, but I guess it’s to be expected when you have goofy thoughts that are so far outside the mainstream. Anyone care to join me? You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article: Copyright © 2013 Robert Ringer ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times. |
| StockFetcher Forums · General Discussion · POLITICS GOES HERE | << 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 ... 76 >>Post Follow-up |
Copyright 2022 - Vestyl Software L.L.C.•Terms of Service | License | Questions or comments? Contact Us
EOD Data sources: DDFPlus & CSI Data
Quotes delayed during active market hours. Delay times are at least 15 mins for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and Amex. Delayed intraday data provided by DDFPlus