Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
I Know I Know Very Little, And I Have a Very Limited Educations (Except Some Street Smarts), Having Said That I Think We Have Turned The Corner In Saving America From "The Free Stuff" Crowd, I Believe In Trump, He's Got Nothing To Gain By Lying Unlike 'Crooked Hillary'... Don D.
BETWEEN THE LINES
A NARCISSISTIC, ANTI-AMERICAN, CONGENITAL WHINER
The Outgoing President: 'This Guy Is a One-Trick Pony'
Joseph Farah ~ Dec 9, 2016 ~ World Net Daily
I am so glad we’re only 40 days away from saying a permanent good riddance to Barack Obama as impostor president.
And, please, this is not racism speaking.
I’m sickened at what comes out of the man’s mouth. I couldn’t care less about the color of his skin.
What is it this time?
OK, I’m going to try to keep my cool here, but I am livid about the way this spoiled man-child punk is still mau-mauing about racism as the front door of the White House is about to hit him in the behind after eight years. That’s how long we’ve had to endure his shameless exploitation of racism in America while he has done just about everything imaginable in his power to stoke and rekindle its dying embers.
But forget all that.
It’s something else he’s done that has rendered me nearly speechless.
It’s unprecedented. I’ve never seen anything like it. It’s audacious, stupefying, over the top even for Obama.
What he did this week while finishing out the final weeks in a two-term presidency – a reign marked by undeserved adulation, unwarranted accolades and awards, virtually no opposition from an opposition party that had control of both houses of Congress in recent years, not to mention a fawning, adoring media – was flabbergasting indeed.
What did he do?
He told America and the world that he personally has been a victim of racism these past eight years while serving as president of these United States.
He whined and whimpered and groused to another race-obsessed eager listener, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, about just how tough it is to live in a land of racist, white haters.
“I think there’s a reason why attitudes about my presidency among whites in Northern states are very different from whites in Southern states,” Obama said. “Are there folks whose primary concern about me has been that I seem foreign, the other? Are those who champion the ‘birther’ movement feeding off of bias? Absolutely.”
This guy is a one-trick pony.
He got elected president without any accomplishments to speak of in 2008 running as a black man.
He got re-elected president in 2012 even after proving himself incompetent to serve.
In other words, race was his political franchise.
Is there someone in America who doesn’t get this yet?
Why did Hillary Clinton lose, while Obama won twice?
Obama got more support from both whites and blacks than she did.
Had Obama not been black, he could never have won the presidency even once with his radical platform and his mysterious past.
Hillary would have likely done better if she were a black woman and perhaps not an unindicted co-conspirator in major breeches of national security and corruption in office.
What is Obama even talking about?
He’s a victim?
How was he hurt? What are his damages? If zooming around in Air Force One, traveling the world with Secret Service protection and living the good life in the White House is racial oppression, where does this malarkey end?
What would make Obama admit he’s no longer a victim of racism? Would he have to be declared the ruler of the world – one who cannot be criticized?
I really suspect even that would not satisfy Obama that some people just don’t like him because of what he says and does, irrespective of the color of his skin.
Get over it, Obama.
Enough is enough.
People don’t dislike you because of race.
They dislike you because you exploit race to demean your critics and the nation that elected you to its highest office.
I can’t wait for Jan. 20.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/a-narcissistic-anti-american-congenital-whiner/#v5OfqLxTq3sL8akH.99
REAL AMERICA
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM
Real Wealth Is 'Having Something The Government Wants'
Patrice Lewis ~ Dec 9, 2016 ~ World Net Daily
I’m sure most people remember the snarky condescending remarks President Obama made in 2012: “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. … If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
The gist of his speech is no business owner can take credit for his or her successful enterprise. Instead, we must give credit to the government, which built the roads and bridges and the Internet and other infrastructure that made any success possible.
Obama’s remarks rightfully caused a furor among small-business owners. So capitalism can’t work without extensive government regulations? Businesses can’t succeed without government funding? On what planet?
Why would the president make such a patently absurd claim? I believe the answer could be found in an Erik Rush column: “If business owners owe their success to others [especially the government], then it ostensibly justifies confiscating their wealth.”
Even David Chavern, executive vice president and chief operating officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said in response to Obama’s speech, “Success is apparently a collective effort – but where was that ‘collective’ during the periods of risk-taking and failure? The vast majority of businesses fail. … Every day millions of people put their lives, savings, houses and families on the line and work 20 hours a day just to grab their small slice of the American dream. Where is the collective when all of this is going on? And if the collective is really responsible for success, how come everyone isn’t successful?”
Let’s face it, there are certain individuals who have the drive and interest to start their own business. These are the people who worked harder, studied more, took more risks and didn’t look for handouts. No one ever became successful by folding his or her hands and doing nothing, no matter how many roads and bridges there are.
But there are lots and lots of people to whom “success” means confiscating the wealth of the producers and redistributing it to those who don’t produce. After all, it’s unfair for wealthy people to have wealth. And “wealth” these days is defined as “having something the government wants.”
Last week on my WND column, a reader made the following comment: “Some time ago, I came to the realization that, living on a farm, a ‘shortage’ [means] there is no more to be had. A shortage in a city is that you do not have the money to buy more. This artificial view of reality is what makes the progressive possible. Progressives have a view of reality that starts somewhere in the middle, and they do not believe in the existence of the beginning of that chain. Things come from nowhere, take no work to produce, and exist in quantities where there would be enough for everybody if wealth was evenly distributed.”
I found this to be a fascinating analysis. When things are viewed from the middle, and the beginning of the chain isn’t visible, then it’s too easy to reach an entirely wrong conclusion. It’s the old “snapshot” problem: If you see a snapshot of something, it’s easy to assume it represents a fixed and eternal reality. But the viewers never sees what went into the snapshot. They never see the work and sacrifices. They only conclude it’s “unfair” when someone has something they want.
A reader sent a story that goes something like this: A liberal looks at a conservative’s sports car and asks, “How many people could have been fed for the money that car cost?” The conservative replies, “I’m not sure. But it fed a lot of families for the people who built it. It fed the people who made the tires. It fed the people who built the radio. It fed the people who mined the metal and harvested the rubber. It fed the people on the assembly line. It fed the people running the auto dealership. But I have to admit, I don’t know how many people it fed.”
This is the difference between capitalism and socialism. When you buy something, you put money in people’s pockets and give them dignity for their skills. This drives the economy and creates more demand for the product, which secures employment for more people.
But when you give someone something for nothing, you rob them of their dignity and self-worth.
Capitalism is freely giving your money in exchange for something of value. Socialism is taking your money against your will, and shoving something down your throat you never asked for.
Robert Heinlein once wrote: “Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded – here and there, now and then – are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as ‘bad luck.'”
There’s an old saying: “The harder I work, the luckier I get.” But luck, as everyone knows, implies someone didn’t do anything to achieve whatever they got. In other words, luck implies the present situation had nothing to do with past sacrifices.
With the exception of winning the lottery, most “lucky” people aren’t lucky. They’re stubborn, they’re determined, they’re (sometimes) desperate, but they’re seldom lucky. They’ve made stupid mistakes and embarrassing decisions, learned from those errors, then applied what they learned to future endeavors, which then succeeded. This is what’s known as the Formula for Success.
Amazingly, their silent partner, the government, isn’t there during the sleepless nights, the failures, the mistakes, the sacrifices, or the long hours. But it’s always there to demand a cut of the profits. After all, you didn’t build that.
Obama, with his disdain for working Americans, will soon be out of office. But his legacy (and the legacy of his predecessors) of America’s massive redistribution scheme remains. We’re not over this recession/depression yet. Our national debt is so high that an economic crash is still very – very – likely. When that happens, you can forget your $15/hour minimum wage jobs. You can forget welfare and EBT cards. You can forget just about anything involving redistribution of wealth.
But now we have a president-elect who is interested in giving people back jobs and dignity, rather than spoon-feeding them baby cereal.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference between capitalism and socialism.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/the-difference-between-capitalism-and-socialism/#mbdlwW9OeTeR1Wej.99
I Know I Know Very Little, And I Have a Very Limit... (
show quote)