The citizens of America have all been lied to. For decades, the leaders of both major political parties have promised us that they can fix our current system and that they can get our national debt under control. As the 2012 election approaches, they are making all kinds of wild promises once again. It is all a giant sham because we have so much debt and the congress won't do what really needs to be done.
The United States has gotten into so much debt that there will be no coming back from this. The current system is permanently broken. 30 years ago the U.S. debt was a horrific crisis that was completely and totally out of control. If we would have dealt with it back then maybe we could have done something about it. But now it is 15 times larger, and we are adding more than a trillion dollars to the debt every single year. The facts that you are about to read below should set America on fire with anger. Please share them with as many people as you can.
What we are doing to our children and our grandchildren is absolutely lurid. Words like “abuse”, “theft” and “crime” do not even begin to describe what we are doing to future generations. We were the wealthiest nation on earth, but it wasn’t good enough just to squander all of our own money. We had to squander the money of our children and our grandchildren as well. America has been so selfish and so self-centered that it is hard to argue that we don’t deserve what is about to happen to this country. We have stolen the future of America, and yet we strut around as if we are the smartest generation that ever walked the face of the earth. We did all of this and kicked God out of the equation at the same time.
All of this prosperity that we see all around us is just an illusion. It is a false prosperity that has been purchased by the biggest mountain of debt in the history of the world. Did you know that if you added up all forms of debt in the United States and divided it up equally that every single family in the country would owe more than $683,000? We are a nation that is absolutely addicted to debt, and the U.S. debt crisis threatens to destroy everything that our forefathers built.
Yes, everything may seem fine for the moment, but what do you think would happen if the federal government suddenly adopted a balanced budget? 1.3 trillion dollars a year would be sucked right out of the economy and we would be looking at an “economic readjustment” that would be mind blowing.
Enjoy this false prosperity while you can, because it is not going to last. Debt is a very cruel master, and our day of reckoning is almost here. The following are 34 shocking facts about U.S. debt that should set America on fire with anger….
#1 During fiscal year 2011, the U.S. government spent 3.7 trillion dollars but it only brought in 2.4 trillion dollars.
#2 When Ronald Reagan took office, the U.S. national debt was less than 1 trillion dollars. Today, the U.S. national debt is over 15.2 trillion dollars.
#3 During 2011, U.S. debt surpassed 100 percent of GDP for the first time ever.
#4 According to Wikipedia, the monetary base “consists of coins, paper money (both as bank vault cash and as currency circulating in the public), and commercial banks’ reserves with the central bank.” Currently the U.S. monetary base is sitting somewhere around 2.7 trillion dollars. So if you went out and gathered all of that money up it would only make a small dent in our national debt. But afterwards there would be no currency for anyone to use.
#5 The U.S. government spent over 454 billion dollars just on interest on the national debt during fiscal 2011.
#6 The U.S. government has total assets of 2.7 trillion dollars and has total liabilities of 17.5 trillion dollars. The liabilities do not even count 4.7 trillion dollars of intragovernmental debt that is currently outstanding.
#7 During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.
#8 It is being projected that the U.S. national debt will surpass 23 trillion dollars in 2015.
#9 According to the GAO, the U.S. government is facing 34 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities for social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare. These are obligations that we have already committed ourselves to but that we do not have any money for.
#10 Others estimate that the unfunded liabilities of the U.S. government now total over 117 trillion dollars.
#11 According to the GAO, the ratio of debt held by the public to GDP is projected to reach 287 percent of GDP by 2086.
#12 Others are much less optimistic. A recently revised IMF policy paper entitled “An Analysis of U.S. Fiscal and Generational Imbalances: Who Will Pay and How?” projects that U.S. government debt will rise to about 400 percent of GDP by the year 2050.
#13 The United States government is responsible for more than a third of all the government debt in the entire world.
#14 If you divide up the national debt equally among all U.S. taxpayers, each taxpayer would owe approximately $134,685.
#15 Mandatory federal spending surpassed total federal revenue for the first time ever in fiscal 2011. That was not supposed to happen until 50 years from now.
#16 Between 2007 and 2010, U.S. GDP grew by only 4.26%, but the U.S. national debt soared by 61% during that same time period.
#17 During Barack Obama’s first two years in office, the U.S. government added more to the U.S. national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses combined.
#18 When you add up all spending by the federal government, state governments and local governments, it comes to 46.6% of GDP.
#19 Our nation is more addicted to government checks than ever before. In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income. Today, government transfer payments account for 18.4% of all income.
#20 U.S. households are now actually receiving more money directly from the U.S. government than they are paying to the government in taxes.
#21 A staggering 48.5% of all Americans live in a household that receives some form of government benefits. Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.
#22 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid.
#23 In 1950, each retiree’s Social Security benefit was paid for by 16 U.S. workers. According to new data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are now only 1.75 full-time private sector workers for each person that is receiving Social Security benefits in the United States.
#24 The U.S. government now says that the Medicare trust fund will run out five years faster than they were projecting just last year.
#25 Right now, spending by the federal government accounts for about 24 percent of GDP. Back in 2001, it accounted for just 18 percent.
#26 If the U.S. government was forced to use GAAP accounting principles (like all publicly-traded corporations must), the U.S. government budget deficit would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 trillion to $5 trillion each and every year.
#27 If you were alive when Christ was born and you spent one million dollars every single day since that point, you still would not have spent one trillion dollars by now. But this year alone the U.S. government is going to add more than a trillion dollars to the national debt.
#28 If right this moment you went out and started spending one dollar every single second, it would take you more than 31,000 years to spend one trillion dollars.
#29 A trillion $10 bills, if they were taped end to end, would wrap around the globe more than 380 times. That amount of money would still not be enough to pay off the U.S. national debt.
#30 If the federal government began right at this moment to repay the U.S. national debt at a rate of one dollar per second, it would take over 470,000 years to pay off the national debt.
#31 If Bill Gates gave every penny of his fortune to the U.S. government, it would only cover the U.S. budget deficit for 15 days.
#32 According to Professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff, the U.S. is facing a “fiscal gap” of over 200 trillion dollars in the future. The following is a brief excerpt from a recent article that he did for CNN…."The government’s total indebtedness — its fiscal gap — now stands at $211 trillion, by my arithmetic. The fiscal gap is the difference, measured in present value, between all projected future spending obligations — including our huge defense expenditures and massive entitlement programs, as well as making interest and principal payments on the official debt — and all projected future taxes".
#33 If you add up all forms of debt in the United States (government, business and consumer), it comes to more than 56 trillion dollars. That is more than $683,000 per family. Unfortunately, the average amount of savings per family in the U.S. is only about $4,735.
#34 The U.S. national debt is now more than 5000 times larger than it was when the Federal Reserve was created back in 1913.
But do our leaders care about statistics such as these? No. In fact, Barack Obama says that we need to raise the debt limit by another 1.2 trillion dollars.
But it is not just U.S. debt that is the problem. The European debt crisis threatens to completely unravel in 2012 and Japan actually has the highest debt to GDP ratio in the entire industrialized world.
In 2012, a total of 7,600,000,000,000 dollars of debt must be rolled over by the G-7 nations, Brazil, Russia, India and China. That doesn’t even count new borrowing. That number just represents old debts that are coming due that must be refinanced.
Anyone out there that insists that this debt bubble can be fixed under our current system is lying or is incompetent. A massive amount of financial pain is coming.
It is time for Americans to wake up from their television-induced comas. It is time for Americans to get very angry. Your future has been destroyed and the future of your children and grandchildren has been destroyed. You better take action while you still can.
Maybe the Inca Calendar, that is predicting something is about to happen that will change global structure and history, is more accurate than we think! In the Bible it states that those nations that do not believe and follow God's word will be destroyed! So we as a nation must consider both our financial and moral standards and make the necessary changes. And I am not referring to "Hope & Change", as defined by "Captain Zero" and the crew of the approaching train wreck!
Hat tip to "The Intel Hub"
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Large Foundations and the growth of socialism in America.
The Ford Foundation was chartered on January 15, 1936 by Edsel Ford and two Ford Motor Company executives “to receive and administer funds for scientific, educational and charitable purposes, all for the public welfare.”
During its early years, the Foundation was based in Michigan (it would relocate to New York in 1953) under the leadership of Ford family members and their associates. After the deaths of Edsel Ford in 1943 and his father Henry Ford four years later, Henry Ford II, Edsel’s son and Henry’s grandson, assumed leadership of the Foundation’s Board of Trustees. He promptly appointed the Gaither Study Committee, headed by California attorney H. Rowan Gaither, to draft a long-term plan for the institution’s future.
In its final report, the Committee recommended that the Ford Foundation should focus its philanthropy on groups and causes that: “promise significant contributions to world peace and ... a world order of law and justice”; “secure greater allegiance to the basic principles of freedom and democracy in the solution of the insistent problems of an ever-changing society”; “advance the economic well being of people everywhere and improve economic institutions for the better realization of democratic goals”; “strengthen, expand and improve educational facilities and methods to enable individuals more fully to realize their potentialities”; “promote greater equality of educational opportunity”; and “through scientific work, increase knowledge of factors which influence or determine human conduct, and extend such knowledge for the maximum benefit of individuals and society.”
Those ideals were the precursors to the Foundation’s present-day, fourfold mission: “to strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation, and advance human achievement.”
But as with any objective, the methods used to pursue each of the foregoing goals may vary widely depending upon how a particular organization -- in this case the Ford Foundation -- defines the operative terms contained therein; how it defines the problems; and how it defines success. Because Ford's leading officials pursued an ever-more leftist orientation politically and ideologically, the Foundation naturally began to direct its funding disproportionately toward donees of similar leanings.
When Henry Ford II ultimately resigned from the Foundation's Board of Trustees in 1977, he expressed his profound disgust with most of its trustees for drifting so radically to the political left. Mr. Ford wrote in his resignation letter: "In effect, the Foundation is a creature of capitalism, a statement that, I'm sure, would be shocking to many professional staff people in the field of philanthropy. It is hard to discern recognition of this fact in anything the Foundation does. It is even more difficult to find an understanding of this in many of the institutions, particularly the universities, that are the beneficiaries of the Foundation's grant programs."
The degree to which the Ford Foundation's values and ideals have continued to move leftward since Henry Ford II wrote those words is reflected in the objectives and worldviews of the organizations it currently supports. These objectives and worldviews include: the weakening of homeland security and anti-terrorism measures on the theory that they constitute unacceptable assaults on civil liberties; the dissolution of American borders; the promotion of mass, unchecked immigration to the United States; the redistribution of wealth; the blaming of America for virtually every conceivable international dispute; the depiction of Israel as an oppressor state that routinely victimizes its Palestinian minority; the weakening of American military capabilities; a devotion to the principle of preferences based on race, ethnicity, gender, and a host of other demographic attributes; the condemnation of the U.S. as a racist, sexist, homophobic nation that discriminates against minorities, women and gays; the characterization of America as an unrepentant polluter whose industrial pursuits cause immense harm to the natural environment; the portrayal of the U.S. as a violator of human rights both at home and abroad; the depiction of America as an aggressively militaristic nation; and support for taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand as an inalienable right for all women.
By using its enormous wealth (derived solely from investments in international securities) to promote these ideals, the Ford Foundation plays a major role in shaping American culture, popular opinion, and public policy.
Currently headed by President Susan Berresford, the Ford Foundation identifies the following as its three major Program Areas:
(a) The Asset Building and Community Development program “helps strengthen and increase the effectiveness of people and organizations working to find solutions to problems of poverty and injustice.” Grants in this area “support vibrant social movements, institutions and partnerships that analyze contemporary social and economic opportunities and devise responses to them.”
(b) The Peace and Social Justice program is founded on the premise that “armed conflict destroys not only human lives but also livelihoods, governments, civil institutions, trust— in short, everything in its wake”;
and that “social justice is the aspiration of all healthy societies and the only long-term guarantee for sustaining peace.”
(c) The Knowledge, Creativity and Freedom program works “globally to advance achievement in the arts, education and scholarship and to advance a positive understanding of sexuality. … It also affirms the importance of freedom to think and act critically, originally and responsibly in facilitating the building of more just and pluralistic societies.
It is apparent that the Ford Foundation and other large foundations are truly anti-American to the extreme. The Ford family has promoted a monster that really should not be allowed to exist on American soil. If you look close at these many programs that are supported by the Ford Foundation you can not help but realize how it promotes a far left radical agenda in our colleges and Universities who benefit from these donations!
During its early years, the Foundation was based in Michigan (it would relocate to New York in 1953) under the leadership of Ford family members and their associates. After the deaths of Edsel Ford in 1943 and his father Henry Ford four years later, Henry Ford II, Edsel’s son and Henry’s grandson, assumed leadership of the Foundation’s Board of Trustees. He promptly appointed the Gaither Study Committee, headed by California attorney H. Rowan Gaither, to draft a long-term plan for the institution’s future.
In its final report, the Committee recommended that the Ford Foundation should focus its philanthropy on groups and causes that: “promise significant contributions to world peace and ... a world order of law and justice”; “secure greater allegiance to the basic principles of freedom and democracy in the solution of the insistent problems of an ever-changing society”; “advance the economic well being of people everywhere and improve economic institutions for the better realization of democratic goals”; “strengthen, expand and improve educational facilities and methods to enable individuals more fully to realize their potentialities”; “promote greater equality of educational opportunity”; and “through scientific work, increase knowledge of factors which influence or determine human conduct, and extend such knowledge for the maximum benefit of individuals and society.”
Those ideals were the precursors to the Foundation’s present-day, fourfold mission: “to strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation, and advance human achievement.”
But as with any objective, the methods used to pursue each of the foregoing goals may vary widely depending upon how a particular organization -- in this case the Ford Foundation -- defines the operative terms contained therein; how it defines the problems; and how it defines success. Because Ford's leading officials pursued an ever-more leftist orientation politically and ideologically, the Foundation naturally began to direct its funding disproportionately toward donees of similar leanings.
When Henry Ford II ultimately resigned from the Foundation's Board of Trustees in 1977, he expressed his profound disgust with most of its trustees for drifting so radically to the political left. Mr. Ford wrote in his resignation letter: "In effect, the Foundation is a creature of capitalism, a statement that, I'm sure, would be shocking to many professional staff people in the field of philanthropy. It is hard to discern recognition of this fact in anything the Foundation does. It is even more difficult to find an understanding of this in many of the institutions, particularly the universities, that are the beneficiaries of the Foundation's grant programs."
The degree to which the Ford Foundation's values and ideals have continued to move leftward since Henry Ford II wrote those words is reflected in the objectives and worldviews of the organizations it currently supports. These objectives and worldviews include: the weakening of homeland security and anti-terrorism measures on the theory that they constitute unacceptable assaults on civil liberties; the dissolution of American borders; the promotion of mass, unchecked immigration to the United States; the redistribution of wealth; the blaming of America for virtually every conceivable international dispute; the depiction of Israel as an oppressor state that routinely victimizes its Palestinian minority; the weakening of American military capabilities; a devotion to the principle of preferences based on race, ethnicity, gender, and a host of other demographic attributes; the condemnation of the U.S. as a racist, sexist, homophobic nation that discriminates against minorities, women and gays; the characterization of America as an unrepentant polluter whose industrial pursuits cause immense harm to the natural environment; the portrayal of the U.S. as a violator of human rights both at home and abroad; the depiction of America as an aggressively militaristic nation; and support for taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand as an inalienable right for all women.
By using its enormous wealth (derived solely from investments in international securities) to promote these ideals, the Ford Foundation plays a major role in shaping American culture, popular opinion, and public policy.
Currently headed by President Susan Berresford, the Ford Foundation identifies the following as its three major Program Areas:
(a) The Asset Building and Community Development program “helps strengthen and increase the effectiveness of people and organizations working to find solutions to problems of poverty and injustice.” Grants in this area “support vibrant social movements, institutions and partnerships that analyze contemporary social and economic opportunities and devise responses to them.”
(b) The Peace and Social Justice program is founded on the premise that “armed conflict destroys not only human lives but also livelihoods, governments, civil institutions, trust— in short, everything in its wake”;
and that “social justice is the aspiration of all healthy societies and the only long-term guarantee for sustaining peace.”
(c) The Knowledge, Creativity and Freedom program works “globally to advance achievement in the arts, education and scholarship and to advance a positive understanding of sexuality. … It also affirms the importance of freedom to think and act critically, originally and responsibly in facilitating the building of more just and pluralistic societies.
It is apparent that the Ford Foundation and other large foundations are truly anti-American to the extreme. The Ford family has promoted a monster that really should not be allowed to exist on American soil. If you look close at these many programs that are supported by the Ford Foundation you can not help but realize how it promotes a far left radical agenda in our colleges and Universities who benefit from these donations!
Monday, January 23, 2012
Why The Democratic Party Is Doomed.
The democratic party, as we have known it for the past 80 years, is now in its last days. Yes, the House Republicans may raise the debt ceiling for a mix of spending cuts and revenue raisers. Yes, Barack Obama may win the 2012 presidential contest by devious tricks. Yes, bureaucrats and judges will continue to impose new and costly regulations on the economy. But it doesn’t matter. The long-term trends are almost all bad news for the extreme left wing of the party.
This fight over raising the federal debt limit exposes a key weakness in the warfare-welfare state that has bestowed power onto the democratic party: Without an ever-growing share of the economy, it dies. Every vital element of the democrats’ coalition — unions, government workers, government contractors, “entitlement” consumers — requires constant increases in payments, grants and consulting contracts. Without those payments, they don’t sign checks to re-elect democrats. With the current size of the national debt there is no way that you can tax enough "evil rich people" to reduce this debt before it all collapses and everyone then suffers the consequences of this type of egregious behavior!
Like it or not, Obama is not the new FDR, but the new Gorbachev: a man forced to preside over the demise of a political system he desperately wants to save. Democrat champions in the punditocracy confidently predict that the future of the world’s oldest political party is bright. But in fact, the coalition that is the modern democratic party is doomed. Every pillar upholding its heavy roof is crumbling. Today's democratic party is not the same party as it once was, in fact it has morphed into the progressive party, which is code for communist party!
The democratic and Republican parties are structurally different. The democrats are a coalition, forged in the New Deal, of diverse interests that do not get along well. Imagine the deer-hunting union member sitting down with the vegetarian college professor and the lesbian lawyer and you will begin to see the trouble party leaders have holding the horde together. So far, money and government preferences have been essential. It is largely a party of unions, government workers and retirees, “green” industries, “entitlement” payees, professors, teachers and social-change activists — all of whom require government payments in one form or another. The only major element of the democratic base that doesn’t receive government payments is the professional class (lawyers, engineers, stock brokers and so on). These high-earners amount to less than 5% of the population and are not reliable democrat donors.
On the other hand, the Republicans are a consensus party. Activists and leaders fight like hell — leading democrats to periodically predict the Republicans’ demise — only to settle on some principle that is then adopted by the majority. Tax cuts and preemptive invasions were once battlegrounds, now they are cornerstones. Significantly, very few of its supporters receive government payments. Yes, defense firms, farmers and small-business owners get contracts, subsidies or loans. Yet the overwhelming majority of Republicans pay more than they receive. They want to pay less, not get more.
The democratic leadership is well aware of this trend and it is because of this trend that they have started their new tactic of "fundamental transformation". This is a tactic right out of Saul Alinsky's playbook and involves pitting the have not's against the haves by promoting "the evils of capitalism". This "Hegelian Dialectic process" is right out of the Marxist view of the world!
Captain Zero and his minions want to roundup all their activists and promote chaos through the actions of their OWS stooges. These activities all follow the rules that are written in "Alinsky's rules for radicals", which, Captain Zero, the neighborhood organizer, knows verbatim.
Conservatives have to stay alert and become activists themselves in order to defeat these marxist agitators and make the upcoming elections this year a resounding defeat for the democrats. As a former true believer I know that dirty tricks will occur if conservatives do not become active in their local communities. These future conservative activists who want to learn what to do to become successful can easily register on line at the http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/ and gain these skills.
This fight over raising the federal debt limit exposes a key weakness in the warfare-welfare state that has bestowed power onto the democratic party: Without an ever-growing share of the economy, it dies. Every vital element of the democrats’ coalition — unions, government workers, government contractors, “entitlement” consumers — requires constant increases in payments, grants and consulting contracts. Without those payments, they don’t sign checks to re-elect democrats. With the current size of the national debt there is no way that you can tax enough "evil rich people" to reduce this debt before it all collapses and everyone then suffers the consequences of this type of egregious behavior!
Like it or not, Obama is not the new FDR, but the new Gorbachev: a man forced to preside over the demise of a political system he desperately wants to save. Democrat champions in the punditocracy confidently predict that the future of the world’s oldest political party is bright. But in fact, the coalition that is the modern democratic party is doomed. Every pillar upholding its heavy roof is crumbling. Today's democratic party is not the same party as it once was, in fact it has morphed into the progressive party, which is code for communist party!
The democratic and Republican parties are structurally different. The democrats are a coalition, forged in the New Deal, of diverse interests that do not get along well. Imagine the deer-hunting union member sitting down with the vegetarian college professor and the lesbian lawyer and you will begin to see the trouble party leaders have holding the horde together. So far, money and government preferences have been essential. It is largely a party of unions, government workers and retirees, “green” industries, “entitlement” payees, professors, teachers and social-change activists — all of whom require government payments in one form or another. The only major element of the democratic base that doesn’t receive government payments is the professional class (lawyers, engineers, stock brokers and so on). These high-earners amount to less than 5% of the population and are not reliable democrat donors.
On the other hand, the Republicans are a consensus party. Activists and leaders fight like hell — leading democrats to periodically predict the Republicans’ demise — only to settle on some principle that is then adopted by the majority. Tax cuts and preemptive invasions were once battlegrounds, now they are cornerstones. Significantly, very few of its supporters receive government payments. Yes, defense firms, farmers and small-business owners get contracts, subsidies or loans. Yet the overwhelming majority of Republicans pay more than they receive. They want to pay less, not get more.
The democratic leadership is well aware of this trend and it is because of this trend that they have started their new tactic of "fundamental transformation". This is a tactic right out of Saul Alinsky's playbook and involves pitting the have not's against the haves by promoting "the evils of capitalism". This "Hegelian Dialectic process" is right out of the Marxist view of the world!
Captain Zero and his minions want to roundup all their activists and promote chaos through the actions of their OWS stooges. These activities all follow the rules that are written in "Alinsky's rules for radicals", which, Captain Zero, the neighborhood organizer, knows verbatim.
Conservatives have to stay alert and become activists themselves in order to defeat these marxist agitators and make the upcoming elections this year a resounding defeat for the democrats. As a former true believer I know that dirty tricks will occur if conservatives do not become active in their local communities. These future conservative activists who want to learn what to do to become successful can easily register on line at the http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/ and gain these skills.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
OWS and Occupy Christianity?
It's very frustrating to see so many ministers, priests, and "spiritual leaders" climbing aboard the radical marxist ideology of George Soros concerning redistribution. There are many marxist christians who have recently alluded; if not outright stated; that the OWS movement is Christian at its core, give me a break. Some suggest that Jesus himself would be among them. I might agree with that last part, but for different reasons from what they suggest! Jesus sought out the crippled, blind, prostitutes, tax collectors, poor in spirit, demon-possessed, etc., to redeem them; so perhaps he would have been among the OWS crowd, in an effort to save them. Jesus would not have been among them to support their purpose or their approach, and the evidence for this is obvious.
The devil, so to speak, is in the details and once he arrives everything becomes chaos and that is where he does his best work in the deception of the human mind. Many Christian believers are being sucked into the social justice ideology because of the one simple fact that cannot be ignored; the Bible instructs us to feed the hungry and care for the poor and downtrodden. This message is everywhere within the text we hold so dear. Because of this fact, socialists and Marxists have used the Bible, that they largely disbelieve and mock, to bludgeon believers. The argument of Christian charity is inescapable. As a result, some believers have quickly embraced the redistributionist ideology. Others, like me, have sensed a false implication behind the message, which urges us to peel the lemon a little further.
The social justice crowd, which includes Barack Obama (Captain Zero) and many of his progressive minions, promises fundamental transformation, predicated upon the action of wealth redistribution. They promise a vague, undefined, but powerful salvation built on hope. Jesus also promised fundamental transformation, of an equally powerful but opposite kind. The "ends" or results of both types of transformation promise a better world, a utopia, where everyone has enough, and everyone is satisfied. But it is the "means" that give away the holiness, or lack thereof, that believers, and nonbelievers who seek truth, should focus on. It reveals the sincerity of the intent of Jesus, and the wickedness behind social justice. The leaders of the OWS movement are only concerned about keeping the herd under their control!
Fundamental transformation can be dissected, as follows: 1) FT, as prescribed by the marxist left: This movement depends on a "vision" transformation of the collective, that's us. The idea is to convince us that redistribution of wealth is a virtuous obligation to be embraced. This is a tough sell, for obvious reasons. Those with wealth don't want to give it to the government, who have proven themselves incompetent stewards of our tax dollars. Those not wealthy, but who are comfortable, recognize how hard they have worked to acquire what they have and are reluctant to wish higher taxes upon others.
There is something inherently destructive about forcing some to bear more of the burden than others, and most people know this, internally. Thus, the task of persuasion requires the compulsory suppression of the principled values of the populace. A thought transformation of the collective ensues, from the traditional code of fairness, where every man must be responsible for himself, pull his own weight, to the Marxist idea that those who have more should contribute more, so that some can be less responsible. This is easier to accomplish when an economy is floundering and people are scared and poor.
The traditional mindset in regard to money, success, and financial achievement becomes more fluid. The FT disciples need only point to a few who have profited by unethical means, at the expense of others, to demonize the entire body of therich. If the masses can be convinced that wealth is evil, they can be made to believe that it is righteous to confiscate more of it for redistribution to the needy -- to make things fair. The tactics involve encouraging the masses to covet what the rich have achieved, to vilify wealth, to intimidate, deceive, employ scare tactics, and to encourage the message that somehow, the collective is owed something by these rich people.
"We are the 99%" is a redistributionist theme that is being embraced because it gives the illusion that nearly all Americans believe that a few should bear the burden of our economic sins. It is interesting that there is a direct correlation to the fact that the salvation they envision is dependent on the fundamental transformation of the masses the 99%, but the responsibility, paying higher taxes, of a few.
2) FT, as prescribed by Christ: Christ's vision depends on a transformation of a single person. Jesus sought out those who were humble in spirit, and profoundly repentant. He forgave them of their sins. He did this, and continues to do this, on a very personal and individual basis. Salvation is never dependent upon a person's thoughts, words, or deeds, or top marginal income tax bracket. Thus, it cannot be earned. We are forgiven and saved simply because of our humble faith in Christ, and his merciful grace.
As a result of this "new life" in Christ, believers naturally undergo a FT that changes their way of seeing the world. They slowly become transformed into better people, not to earn salvation, but because they have already been saved. This freedom of spirit allows one to try to obey God's commands, including that of helping those in need
The Jesus version of FT is about the decision that a single individual makes, to put his faith in Christ. His salvation is due to God's grace and love, not his willingness to be taxed more. His spiritual wealth is powerful and infinite. He is, so to speak, the 1%. The messages of charity and benevolence are repeated throughout the Bible.
Fear of "running out" is what drives humans to hold tight and not share with others. Perhaps that is the reason behind the redundancy of the message. God knows this is hard for us, so he reminds us frequently that our treasure will be in heaven. Jesus did, however, warn his followers to be only as generous as their hearts allowed, so as not to grow resentment and worry in our spirits. He also warned us not to feed those who are capable of feeding themselves, as this cultivates sloth and laziness in that person.
These are decisions that only an individual can make, for himself. Yet, governments have historically usurped this choice from us. The contrast in the "means" to FT is stark: to transform the collective, negative, coercive tactics must be used, à la Alinsky.
Just reviewing the 10 Commandments, quoted below from instruction in the principles of Christianity by Martin Luther, government FT must encourage the masses to break the following laws of God:
#7) Thou shall not steal: The masses must be convinced that it is right and good to steal, aka make the rich pay their fair share! When the government demands more from a person than that person feels is fair, charity is not involved -- theft is.
#8) Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor: This movement by the left is creating the illusion that all rich people stepped on the backs of the poor in the former's pursuit of the dollar. The sin of one should not indict the rest. The fact is that many wealthy people built ethical businesses by offering fair salaries and benefits to a lot of people. They are now being vilified, unfairly, by this blanket false witness that the left is cloaking them in.
#9) Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's house: I have always enjoyed driving through wealthy neighborhoods, admiring the beautiful homes of successful people, and imagining that I might find a way to be so successful. Now, through the Democrat FT, we are being encouraged to despise such success, and to cry out for government to take more from these people to make it fair!
#10) Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his: Refer to #9.
There are many other commands throughout the text of the Bible that are also defiled by Government FT. Meanwhile, the Jesus brand of FT is brought about by freeing the spirit, which is created in the true image of God. This liberty is released by the powerful redemption of our individual souls. It generates within us a willingness to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to share with others the blessings of our labors.
The inherent problem with redistribution is that the tactics at the very core of this ideology rely on the ability of the government to appeal to man's darkest tendencies: jealousy, envy, greed (yes, the 99% are guilty of greed), covetousness, anger, and on and on. The charity approach to solving our problems relies on freeing men from the fear of "running out" and appealing to the light of generosity and goodwill that exists in most who have experienced
economic blessing.
Ask yourself which would make you feel warm, fuzzy, generous, and likely to give again: 1) personally, freely sharing with the needy the fruits of your labor, or2) watching government take the fruits of your labor to give some of it to the needy (what's left over after the bailouts, kickbacks, and under-the-table corruption).
Creating individuals who feel the security and the freedom to give from the heart is a far healthier tactic for the well-being of both the man and the society. Vilification, coercion, and confiscation deprive men's souls of the joy of giving freely. The creed of Saul Alinsky, whom the redistributionist's necessarily worship, is that the end justifies the means. For those who identify with FT through Christ, perhaps a more fitting creed is "the means justifies the end."
Hat tip to Christine M. Biediger
The devil, so to speak, is in the details and once he arrives everything becomes chaos and that is where he does his best work in the deception of the human mind. Many Christian believers are being sucked into the social justice ideology because of the one simple fact that cannot be ignored; the Bible instructs us to feed the hungry and care for the poor and downtrodden. This message is everywhere within the text we hold so dear. Because of this fact, socialists and Marxists have used the Bible, that they largely disbelieve and mock, to bludgeon believers. The argument of Christian charity is inescapable. As a result, some believers have quickly embraced the redistributionist ideology. Others, like me, have sensed a false implication behind the message, which urges us to peel the lemon a little further.
The social justice crowd, which includes Barack Obama (Captain Zero) and many of his progressive minions, promises fundamental transformation, predicated upon the action of wealth redistribution. They promise a vague, undefined, but powerful salvation built on hope. Jesus also promised fundamental transformation, of an equally powerful but opposite kind. The "ends" or results of both types of transformation promise a better world, a utopia, where everyone has enough, and everyone is satisfied. But it is the "means" that give away the holiness, or lack thereof, that believers, and nonbelievers who seek truth, should focus on. It reveals the sincerity of the intent of Jesus, and the wickedness behind social justice. The leaders of the OWS movement are only concerned about keeping the herd under their control!
Fundamental transformation can be dissected, as follows: 1) FT, as prescribed by the marxist left: This movement depends on a "vision" transformation of the collective, that's us. The idea is to convince us that redistribution of wealth is a virtuous obligation to be embraced. This is a tough sell, for obvious reasons. Those with wealth don't want to give it to the government, who have proven themselves incompetent stewards of our tax dollars. Those not wealthy, but who are comfortable, recognize how hard they have worked to acquire what they have and are reluctant to wish higher taxes upon others.
There is something inherently destructive about forcing some to bear more of the burden than others, and most people know this, internally. Thus, the task of persuasion requires the compulsory suppression of the principled values of the populace. A thought transformation of the collective ensues, from the traditional code of fairness, where every man must be responsible for himself, pull his own weight, to the Marxist idea that those who have more should contribute more, so that some can be less responsible. This is easier to accomplish when an economy is floundering and people are scared and poor.
The traditional mindset in regard to money, success, and financial achievement becomes more fluid. The FT disciples need only point to a few who have profited by unethical means, at the expense of others, to demonize the entire body of therich. If the masses can be convinced that wealth is evil, they can be made to believe that it is righteous to confiscate more of it for redistribution to the needy -- to make things fair. The tactics involve encouraging the masses to covet what the rich have achieved, to vilify wealth, to intimidate, deceive, employ scare tactics, and to encourage the message that somehow, the collective is owed something by these rich people.
"We are the 99%" is a redistributionist theme that is being embraced because it gives the illusion that nearly all Americans believe that a few should bear the burden of our economic sins. It is interesting that there is a direct correlation to the fact that the salvation they envision is dependent on the fundamental transformation of the masses the 99%, but the responsibility, paying higher taxes, of a few.
2) FT, as prescribed by Christ: Christ's vision depends on a transformation of a single person. Jesus sought out those who were humble in spirit, and profoundly repentant. He forgave them of their sins. He did this, and continues to do this, on a very personal and individual basis. Salvation is never dependent upon a person's thoughts, words, or deeds, or top marginal income tax bracket. Thus, it cannot be earned. We are forgiven and saved simply because of our humble faith in Christ, and his merciful grace.
As a result of this "new life" in Christ, believers naturally undergo a FT that changes their way of seeing the world. They slowly become transformed into better people, not to earn salvation, but because they have already been saved. This freedom of spirit allows one to try to obey God's commands, including that of helping those in need
The Jesus version of FT is about the decision that a single individual makes, to put his faith in Christ. His salvation is due to God's grace and love, not his willingness to be taxed more. His spiritual wealth is powerful and infinite. He is, so to speak, the 1%. The messages of charity and benevolence are repeated throughout the Bible.
Fear of "running out" is what drives humans to hold tight and not share with others. Perhaps that is the reason behind the redundancy of the message. God knows this is hard for us, so he reminds us frequently that our treasure will be in heaven. Jesus did, however, warn his followers to be only as generous as their hearts allowed, so as not to grow resentment and worry in our spirits. He also warned us not to feed those who are capable of feeding themselves, as this cultivates sloth and laziness in that person.
These are decisions that only an individual can make, for himself. Yet, governments have historically usurped this choice from us. The contrast in the "means" to FT is stark: to transform the collective, negative, coercive tactics must be used, à la Alinsky.
Just reviewing the 10 Commandments, quoted below from instruction in the principles of Christianity by Martin Luther, government FT must encourage the masses to break the following laws of God:
#7) Thou shall not steal: The masses must be convinced that it is right and good to steal, aka make the rich pay their fair share! When the government demands more from a person than that person feels is fair, charity is not involved -- theft is.
#8) Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor: This movement by the left is creating the illusion that all rich people stepped on the backs of the poor in the former's pursuit of the dollar. The sin of one should not indict the rest. The fact is that many wealthy people built ethical businesses by offering fair salaries and benefits to a lot of people. They are now being vilified, unfairly, by this blanket false witness that the left is cloaking them in.
#9) Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's house: I have always enjoyed driving through wealthy neighborhoods, admiring the beautiful homes of successful people, and imagining that I might find a way to be so successful. Now, through the Democrat FT, we are being encouraged to despise such success, and to cry out for government to take more from these people to make it fair!
#10) Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his: Refer to #9.
There are many other commands throughout the text of the Bible that are also defiled by Government FT. Meanwhile, the Jesus brand of FT is brought about by freeing the spirit, which is created in the true image of God. This liberty is released by the powerful redemption of our individual souls. It generates within us a willingness to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to share with others the blessings of our labors.
The inherent problem with redistribution is that the tactics at the very core of this ideology rely on the ability of the government to appeal to man's darkest tendencies: jealousy, envy, greed (yes, the 99% are guilty of greed), covetousness, anger, and on and on. The charity approach to solving our problems relies on freeing men from the fear of "running out" and appealing to the light of generosity and goodwill that exists in most who have experienced
economic blessing.
Ask yourself which would make you feel warm, fuzzy, generous, and likely to give again: 1) personally, freely sharing with the needy the fruits of your labor, or2) watching government take the fruits of your labor to give some of it to the needy (what's left over after the bailouts, kickbacks, and under-the-table corruption).
Creating individuals who feel the security and the freedom to give from the heart is a far healthier tactic for the well-being of both the man and the society. Vilification, coercion, and confiscation deprive men's souls of the joy of giving freely. The creed of Saul Alinsky, whom the redistributionist's necessarily worship, is that the end justifies the means. For those who identify with FT through Christ, perhaps a more fitting creed is "the means justifies the end."
Hat tip to Christine M. Biediger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)