International Redistribution

What’s the Question?

Socialists don’t just support, and force, redistribution from one individual to another… they support, and force, the redistribution of our income from our country to others.

It’s happening right in front of us.

The crisis on the border and the flood of illegal aliens into the United States unobstructed by our Federal Government is by design. If President Obama cannot directly send money (which we do not have) to the countries of his choice he will bring the citizens of those countries here to hook them up on our social welfare programs.

The new Democrat voting base and Union Dues which find their way into Voting Boothes and into Democrat Campaign Coffers are just added value.

This is not complicated.

While denying that this is the intent, the administration continues to do it right in front of us. The Obama Administration and the Democrat party has adopted the FU strategy when it comes to governing. In other words, ‘We’re not doing what you think we’re doing… and even if we are, FU!’  It is Machiavellian in the purest form.

The Progressives are destroying this country.

This is not hyperbole. Again… it’s happening right in front of you. The Socialist Left see that their time may be short and have accelerated their push to tear down as much of what’s left of this country as founded as they can. They know full well that the public is catching on to what they’ve been doing for the last 7 decades. Obama has simply moved faster with the ‘fundamental transformation of America’ than any President in recent memory thus mandating the need to ‘grab as much as you can’ before his party is kicked out of power.

If you’re reading this shaking your head and thinking I’m overstating the drive behind the current President and his Party…

Then ask yourself;

Do you really think they would be risking their own fortunes and lives by promoting, facilitating and embracing the Flood of Illegals into the US along with the diseases and crime commiserate to such unchecked migration?

Do you think the people who have anointed themselves smarter than you in every way have forgotten why Ellis Island existed in the first place?

Do you actually believe these geniuses view the creation a brand new entitlement class will improve the economic health of the United States?

But the question that encapsulates all of this is… Do you really think they would be doing any of this if it wasn’t Ideologically Driven?

No. Of course Not.

But that’s the evil that drives them. Their Socialist Ideology and their innate desire to turn the United States into a purely Socialist state, by whatever name they want to call it, is what’s in play.

There is a War underway, and We The People are losing.

(Unenforced Immigration Laws Driving Border Crisis – Breitbart)

(070714)

Advertisements

About Mike

Background is in Media with a little History Major thrown in just to be annoying. View all posts by Mike

13 responses to “International Redistribution

  • superslaviswife

    Too much empathy is more of an illness than too little empathy. A non-empath can at least learn to mimic empathy, to use logic to assess their own best interests and the best interests of those around them. An extreme empath thinks as highly of a convicted criminal in China whom they’ve never met as they do of their own little brother in their mother’s arms. Someone who puts the lives of strangers before the lives of his tribe will see his life-support being cut off by those who care less about strangers and more about their tribes.

    The West has too much abundance and is being frivolous with it, indulging the whims of extreme empathy. But when the well starts to run dry, angry tribalism will resurface to take back what it needs to live. Hopefully in good time.

    Like

    • Mike

      Too much Trine is what got us here… I would suggest that Rational Self-Interest is a better, and more Enlightened, path. A Self-interested person can be as empathetic as he wants… so long as he can’t force me to agree with him. The Tribe has a tendency to do just that.

      Like

      • superslaviswife

        I’d have to disagree there. Whilst I wouldn’t go as far as those who claim small communities made us great (after all, the industrial eras were nothing but the destruction of communities and the building of cities and empires), small communities do encourage a degree of self-preservation as well as a vested interest in protecting those around you. Something which larger communities, as we have observed, do not offer. People are more likely to grow as individuals when their tribe is growing and is supporting them. Independence is all well and good, but I think you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater when you hold it so aloft. You need others to pursue your ideals. You need employers, customers and often coworkers whatever you want to do for a living. You need a good defense force and medical care if you want to survive off-grid. If they are lacking, you need a tribe to protect you from raiders and thieves. You will always benefit from association with others in a way you can’t benefit from solitude.

        The painful part is that our associations are forced upon us and we’re meant to rely on people with weaker minds and bodies than we have and a government that neither sees nor loves us. But small, close-knit communities are far more flexible, lenient in most aspects and generally very eager to help you pursue your goals. Yes, you’ll have a leader who must be respected and often obeyed, or you’re gone. But It’s better to curry favour with a person who knows you and who holds their position from earned respect than to try and curry favour with an indifferent government whom nobody respects and coworkers that are forced to work with you and who don’t actually care about your wellbeing.

        Humans are social animals. You will never be alone. The best you can do is choose a good circle of association and, if you don’t want to be ruled, to rule it and bear the burden.

        Like

        • Mike

          Your last statement is paramount. “Choose” is the operative word. But we may have to continue to disagree when it comes to the negative effects of the tribal mentality. As an aside, if you’re waiting for government to ‘love’ you then we hold to very different views of the function of government. Although you prevailing premise seems close to mine I dedect some confusion somewhere. Most likely mine. I’m going to repost something for you.

          Like

          • superslaviswife

            Re: government love. Humans do better under a simple leadership where our rulers know us personally and understand our needs. A lot of individualists and would-be “strong independent persons” forget that if you don’t rely on people around you, you are trusting your government to pick you up when you fall, defend you from enemies and keep you cared for in your old age. Your government cannot love you, so it will not always do that. This is the root of the “strong independent woman” joke where she’s living off welfare and alimony, using subsidized healthcare and relying on others to do her favours and paid labour to keep her going. Absolute independence is a joke, an impossibility. A ruler who knows and loves you, be it a woman’s husband, a man’s son, a local religious authority or close friend will often do what the government doesn’t have to. Therefore, you will eventually, at some point, select someone as your ruler. Even the ruler retires and is ruled in the end.

            The amount of choice we have is a luxury that allows us to go further in terms of building our small society. But at some point the group will have needs which the individual will not necessarily benefit from or that could harm the individual. At this point the “strong independent” individualists detach and use the free choice to find another group. However then they are starting from zero again, rebuilding trust, understanding, loyalty, etc. If between switches they have a problem, they are relying on the loyalty of the group they abandoned or the charity of their new group to help them. I’m sure you can see how problems arise from there. Freedom of association is a luxury, but also a responsibility.

            Like

            • Mike

              Freedom of association is s natural right. Not a luxury. Slavi, you throw too mych into a single comment. It makes it difficult to address your assertions. Please be more consice so we can have a better exchange. That being said, I understand what you’re implying but disagree with the premis. As long as you believe in the superiority if the tribe you will be easily manipulated by those who wish to “rule” you. In other words, your “ruler” Will cease to be of vour choice and will instead be he who can lead you with lies. The preeminence of the Individual is what this country was founded upon and what secures our freedoms. Our rights know no color, religion or ‘tribe’.
              Let’s continue this on later posts. I like your challenges.

              Like

              • superslaviswife

                Sorry about the wordiness. I don’t mean to write essays, I’m just in the habit of doing it!

                And I’m not a believer in natural rights. You are born a naked animal in a world of savages in suits. The only natural right is power. All freedoms are social constructs upheld by your society. Luxuries that most humans rarely fully enjoy.

                Like

                • Mike

                  I thought there might be differences of premise. One’s Foundation will always determine one’s ultimate argument.
                  While I disagree with your premise… history is on your side. And that’s what makes America ‘Exceptional’.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • superslaviswife

                    America is exceptional only in that it has sustained its balance for so long. And even so, not everyone has the freedoms it promises and it hasn’t been around for very long in the grand scheme. If you don’t work, you still have no natural born right to food or shelter, you can still starve out in the cold. If there is war, you still have no right to safety or freedom, you can still be drafted. If the government decides not to defend one of your freedoms, you will no longer have it. Again, these freedoms are luxuries afforded by a strong and wealthy government.

                    This is only a bad thing as long as you continue to believe in your integral, natural born rights. If I believed in an integral, natural born right not to be assaulted in any place, at any time, for any reason, I could become more careless in my actions, resulting in harm. Chances are I would never be attacked by anyone. But if I were I would feel let down, broken, lost. However I do not view it as an integral right. I am as likely to be assaulted as any other person in my same situation. I can *hope* that I am never assaulted, that if I am the law enforcement is swift to help me, that the assailant is lenient or weak. But that hope isn’t a right. I can’t rely on it and would be unwise to do so. Likewise, America may be exceptional in how well it enforces its laws, encourages obedience and creates an expectation of a good life. But it has the potential to turn just as wild and ugly as any society.

                    And none of this is bad or good. It’s just life, the way it always has been.

                    Like

  • David

    Did you ever see someone die of cancer? It’s a steady relentless taking, taking, taking by the tumor until the host dies because everything that it needs to survive has been taken from it.

    Sound familiar?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: