merican history is filled with quotes by great leaders… and not so great leaders. Amongst these a truly great one came out in an inaugural address on January 20th, 1961. On that date, John Kennedy, who is still a Democrat icon, said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”
Fifty-five years later, the Democrats seem to have forgotten that line, while still revering the man who spoke it. They no longer speak of serving their country, and no longer revere those who do. Rather, the Democrat Party stands behind cop killers and those who walk on our flag. They have given away their patriotism, replacing it with partisanship.
Yet the country still has needs and still needs people who will make the sacrifice to meet those needs. Sadly, fewer and fewer Democrats are rising to that challenge, leaving it instead in the hands of Republicans, Libertarians and others who haven’t lost their patriotism.
So, what happened to the Democrat Party? They started preaching entitlement. This happened more than 50 years ago, when Lyndon B. Johnson declared the war on poverty in his 1964 State of the Union Address, just a few short years after Kennedy’s famous statement. In declaring war against poverty and following that up with legislation to give handouts to the poor, Johnson changed the course of his party and this country.
Ever since then, each successive generation of Democrat political candidates has tried to outdo the last, in their promises to give free handouts to the poor. While this seems like a worthy goal to the rank and file Democrats,
But I always wonder about their true motivation, whenever I see the Democrats promising to give more to the poor. Mankind is not naturally altruistic and it’s statistically impossible that there would be that many people, let alone politicians, who would want to help people out.
Of course, when Democrats talk about helping the poor, they aren’t talking about doing it out of their own pockets. Their idea is to tax others, so that they have the money to run those massive entitlement programs. At the same time, they work just as hard as Republicans, to ensure that they don’t pay one more dollar in taxes than they have to. So, their altruism is a phony thing, not something of the heart.
If that’s the case, then why do they work so hard to make themselves look like they truly care about the poor? I see two reasons for this, both of which I believe are backed by world history.
First of all, appearing to care about the poor gives them a sense of moral superiority.
That’s a big deal to liberals, as shown by the way they talk about those who don’t agree with their ideology.
They demean anyone who is not on-board with their program, as being of lower intelligence and of poor moral character.
But, in reality, liberals give to the poor and needy to cover their own feelings of inadequacy for their own moral failure.
The same reasoning causes them to support minority issues. Liberals have made it quite clear that they think anyone who doesn’t support gay rights is morally bankrupt; when in reality, the whole idea of gay rights is morally bankrupt. They have to give themselves the feeling of superiority, in order to cover up their instinctive realization of their own failure.
But making themselves feel good isn’t the main reason why liberal politicians want to give to the poor. That’s just the mask they show to the public.
The real reason is much more sinister and self-serving. Throughout history, any political party who has spoken about helping the poor has done so to gain their vote, so that ultimately their party could gain power.
This is actually an excellent political strategy. There are always more poor people than there are rich people. So it’s easy to create class envy and even class warfare. That class envy is easily transferred to votes, simply by promising to feed the greed of the poor.
Please note that my definition of greed, like most conservatives, is much different than that of the liberal left. To them, greed is wanting more than you need. That definition is based upon the precept that in taking more than you need, you are taking away from someone else. If that were true, then the nation’s economy couldn’t have grown over the last 200 years. But to us on the left, greed is all about wanting what someone else has. They want our money, so they tax us to get it.
What is All About?
Power it’s really all about. Democrats, like any politicians, want power. They want all the power. They want to consolidate it in their hands, and extend it into every area of people’s lives. They are so convinced of their rightness and righteousness in wanting this power, that they will stoop to any means necessary to get it. Then, once they have the power, they will use it to control people’s lives, while giving benefits to themselves, the elite.
I’m not basing this opinion on any bias against Democrats or any hatred towards any one group; but rather, on history. For the last 100 years or more, every political party which has risen to power by promising to give to the poor, has done so for the express purpose of gaining total political control. Once they achieved that, they parleyed it into control of people’s lives.
Like I said, just look at history; Lenin and Stalin in Russia, Hitler in Germany, Mao in China, Peron in Argentina, Maduro in Venezuela. The list goes on and on. Each promised to help the poor, vilifying the rich. Yet when each got into power, they didn’t take the wealth of the rich to help the poor, they took it to line their own pockets. The poor got a smattering of benefits, and the true beneficiaries were the revolutionaries, the new crop of politicians and their bureaucrat lackeys.
Interestingly enough, these leaders and their political parties were all liberals. They were all socialist. They all made the same claims and they all followed the same path. What reason does anyone have to even think that our current crop of liberals is any different?
Bernie Sanders, the former presidential candidate openly claims to be a Socialist. He calls it “democratic socialism” but there’s really no difference. Many of the politicians I listed above did the same thing. Hitler was voted into power, on a promise of socialism, just like Bernie Sanders promised.
But there’s no real difference between Bernie Sanders politics and Hillary Clinton‘s. No leader of the Democrat Party has been able to answer the question, when asked the difference between socialism and the Democrat Party. That’s because there is no difference. The Democrats have gone full circle and come back to the bad old ideas of socialism.
As a theory, socialism sounds great. It even sounds better than democracy. But it requires something that the world has always been sadly lacking in… perfect people. The only way that you can make a true socialistic society work, is for everyone to be willing to work for the common good, even if it is to their own detriment.
That goes against human nature, as well as the will to survive. If you aren’t going to receive anything extra for doing extra, why should you? And if you aren’t going to receive any less for doing less, why should you do any more than the absolute minimum?
That’s where socialism fails. While it sounds great to give everyone the same, in reality, not everyone deserves the same. Someone who drops out of high school and ends up flipping burgers really isn’t worth as much as s brain surgeon, no matter how you try to twist reality.
Yet Democrats have preached for so long that the poor deserve more, that they have succeeded in creating massive amounts of envy, class hatred and a desire amongst the poor to destroy those who have more than them. There is nowhere that this can lead, but to class warfare, where the poor try to kill the rich.
We’re just starting to see the beginning of this with movements like Black Lives Matter. While racially motivated, Black Lives Matter is fueled by poverty. Blacks without hope, living in the ghetto, are striking out against “the system” that they feel is oppressing them. So far, their efforts have not been very effective and have in fact hurt themselves more than those they claim to be against. But given time and some organizational help, which the Democrats like George Soros are glad to provide, they could become quite dangerous to society at large.
Those who are participating in Black Lives Matter are nothing more than pawns in the game of politics. They are being used by liberals to cause unrest and violence for their own political purposes. In the long run, they won’t receive what they are after, which will merely fuel their rage even more.
Where will this all lead? If the Democrats have their way, it will lead to them finally crushing their rivals and gaining complete power. It will lead to socialism, which is nothing more than the front door into communism. Ultimately, it will lead to the one-world, totalitarian government.
That’s the end game for them, and they are not reluctant to use the lives of the poor as pawns; after all… there are lots of poor.
Pat N | August 8, 2016
Dnesh D’Souza’s new movie, Hillary’s America, takes it back to Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democratic Party as we know it today. This needs to be seen by every black, Hispanic, and Native American preferably before the November election! Perhaps we can persuade Mr. D’Souza to put it out on DVD soon!
C big | August 8, 2016
FYI not all “black, Hispanic and Native American” vote Democratic.
Oh by the way, I’m “black” as you call it and am Independent.
Arthur | August 8, 2016
I could not have said it better…when any government runs out of other people’s money and it has always happened…then unrest and chaos will prevail and collapse is imminent…once checks and services stop or drastically cut you can look forward to banks closing like in Venezuela and long lines at ATM’s to get your daily ration…
When I lived in So Miami and a hurricane was approaching most clear minded people prepared…
Sometimes I get physically ill when I see so many still drinking the cool aid and truly not see this coming…
Some actually say they will just print more money…
All I can end this with is:
Prepare for the worst and Hope for the best…
Greg Groebner | August 8, 2016
A good article, but this excerpt is not correct, at least not in the way we understand the word today: “Hitler was voted into power, on a promise of socialism”.
Today, the descriptive word would not be “socialism”, but something like “Societalism”. In the inter-war period, the term “socialism” had not solidified to its meaning today of “ownership of the means of production”. Rather, National Socialism was simply “nationalism”, but with an emphasis on the internal affairs of building up the “social” order of “society” (public works benefiting the society such as the road system, laws protecting workers, etc., but not an attack on private ownership if that ownership was of benefit to society and the nation, as opposed to international corporations). It is an easily misunderstood period of history, and there are many layers of war-time propaganda on which we still feed daily.
Charles Powell | August 8, 2016
This article is one of the best written Mr. White that explains the current situation in our country today that I have read in a long time. Lord help us if Clinton gets elected this election. The so called final nail in the coffin will have occurred then. It’s coming down to a clan of people who stick together that will survive this situation. Families will have to ban together as in Colonial times to be able to make it. Thank you so much for this article Mr. White!
lsk | August 8, 2016
Such ridiculous assertions. If I’m a Democrat then I’m not patriotic? I’m a military spouse of 20+ years and I love this country. Making wholesale accusation of my patriotism based on my political leanings is insulting and flat out wrong. Instead of pointing fingers at the “other side”, can we try listening to each other and work together for a common good? This country is made up of many individuals with different viewpoints. Wholesale demonization of political opposites does little to advance our collective well being. It seems very unpatriotic and petty to belittle your fellow countrymen because they simply don’t agree with a Republican point of view. We need to come together and love thy neighbor…and stop this divisive rhetoric.
Thomas | August 8, 2016
Mamm, with all due respect, it is the progressives in both parties that are suspect in thier motives. True democrats and republicans genearally want the same things for this nation. We do disagree on how to achieve these goals. Conservatives prefer local government and charities to administer programs for people of need whereas liberals prefer a federal based program. The progressives are deviding us using any problem or disagreement they can.
Stevo | August 8, 2016
lsk, unfortunately neither party has the best intentions of the American people at heart. They spend all their time pitting Class and Race against each other so that we don’t pay attention to that man behind the curtain (the policies that are put in place when people are not looking) That is how they continue to get away with robbing the treasury and looking into our lives when theirs are the ones that should be examined. I am a 31+ year member of the military and was born and raised in an extended Democrat family in the deep south. So I have heard it all before from both sides.
Rex Friedlein | August 9, 2016
sounds as though you are an independent, that’s a good thing. Patisanship is so devisive regardless of which side uses it.
Brent Anthony | August 9, 2016
Some very good points. Months before I read this article, I was laughing about how the constintuency of the Democratic party would react to the “Ask not what your country can do for you…” line, so well spoken by former President Kennedy. Do you believe it would be well received today?
Outside from the over-generalization of Democrats being unpatriotic, what other points in the article do you disagree with?
In my mind, there is no substitute for personal accountability. It’s incredibly challenging to build a society on anything less. Yes, we need to help those in need, but that cannot be done efficiently on a Federal level. The only thing that concolidating a large amount of money and power leads to is corruption, and exploitation. If you want proof, take a look at the trend of the last 60 years of increased socialism, and the results we have today. The money’s been wasted, and corruption is the norm. It’s exactly what the founding fathers warned us against, and it’s undeniably “in-our-face.”
Yes, you can find instances of success. But they’re outliers, not the main trend.
The article says VERY WONDERFULLY that the Democrats principles would be beautiful…in a perfect world. Something i’ve also said many times. The problem is, this isn’t a perfect world. Continuing down this road is societal suicide to anybody who objectively looks at the situation and history.
To all thinking Democrats, I would ask, what does the phrase (by somebody wiser than myself) “Those who do not understand the mistakes of the past, are condemned to repeat them.” mean to you? Do you really believe that this time we’ll be able to get it right? This time we will be able to embrace socialism and not expect the same result? The real problem with our current system as setup by our forefathers, is CORRUPTION. Root out the corruption, ALL OF IT, AND BE VIGILANT AGAINST IT ALWAYS and it will work as it should.
Marty | August 14, 2016
The definition of insanity is voting for the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Most demoncrats, not all, but the vast majority whom I know, are socialists. Socialism has never worked anywhere in the world, but they want it here. Therefore, most demoncrats are insane (by defintion).
Anonymouse1 | September 4, 2016
You asked if we could try listening to each other. In short, that is exactly what the writer of this article is asking it’s readers to do——-not take what they wrote out of context.
If one thinks that political parties alone, deserve some kind of exception or reprieve, then one is only fooling themselves by turning a blind eye to the truths that the history of this country and our world has taught us. That is, at least from my conception of it, what the reader is attempting to point out.
The fact of the matter is there’s plenty of blame to go around and even less people today whom are willing to accept responsibility for their own actions——-but if we just stop responding with pure emotion and take a step back for a moment and actually analyze the situation from an objective point of view, we might start to understand why so many others feel differently than we do.
If we take the time to conduct thorough research to understand why these assertions and facts are being brought into the light and why these differences actually exist in the first place, we might be less likely to jump to conclusions or even down another persons throat because we think we understand what they’re trying to say.
History can teach us a lot of things, but even more important than that, it can also provide the clues we need to solve the puzzle of why the society we live in today is in such dire straights. Such knowledge is abundant and need not be impossible to piece together, but in order to get the bigger picture, one needs to put forth that concerted effort in the first place. We should try to put ourselves in the others shoes and try to understand, before we sit down in our warrior-arm-chair.
Instead of reacting to a historical lesson with strife and raw anger, maybe it’d be best to breathe, maybe even count to 10——-and then ask ourselves this question: Is what I’m about to say reflective of any insight on the matter or am I simply responding off raw emotion that may very well have to do with other stressful events which happened in my own life?
One way to avoid turmoil and constant struggle, is by analyzing ourselves and our own reactions to life events. In this way, we stand a good chance at rooting out any self-deceptions which may lie underneath the facades we might have unintentionally become so accustomed to accepting as our only way to survive.
Political parties are defined by the very mechanisms of deception that our history is fraught——-regardless of which side we’re talking about. And while one side may feel differently than the other, they’re all subject to the same puppet-master, the real ruler of this wicked world we live in, Satan the Devil himself.
If you think that the evil which permeates this society is truly devoid of real demonic influence, then I challenge you to take a closer look at the true history of this world and dig deep——-real deep!
True knowledge is obtainable, but much like hard work, it doesn’t pay off unless you put it to good use.
c Castellucci | August 8, 2016
All I can say is the DODD/FRANK ACT did nothing tocurb these big banks into doing business the correct way. Just like the housing crash of 08 get ready for another BUBBLE BURST except this will have far dire consequences then the housing bubble. Look at the derivitives market and you will see that the biggest banks in America are quadrupling down WITH OUR MONEY!!!! Over 500 trillion invested in derivitives right now yet our national debt sits at 19 trillion. When the derivitives BUBBLE BURSTS just think of Greece. Probably all part of the NWO. The USA is the last rich country that the NWO needs to falter and then they will roll right over us like the PLAGUE just like this article states. Check the number for yourself at the US Office on Comptroller and you will see the numbers. ALL THE GOVERNMENTS IN THE WORLD WON’T BE ABLE TO BAIL OUT THESE COMPANIES NOW
los | August 8, 2016
Got news for you, the Republicans aren’t any better as far as I have noticed. Both parties need to be scraped and something that will actually work put into place!
flowergirl | August 8, 2016
Libertarian is the way to go. Rand Paul is a good choice.
Len | August 8, 2016
While in the military I was expected to recognize classified material not only by its heading but by its content. By Clintons own admission she is unable to identify classified by it content. You really think she qualified for president of the U.S.A.
Len | August 8, 2016
First order for Government to control the people is to disarm the Masses. Take away their ability to fight and to always have the threat to rebel. The ability for the people to rebel is what helps to keep the government in line. All you say we can vote them out of office. Ask Bernie how that works. Gun control #1 priority of Obama and Hillary. Lie, misrepresent the truth what ever it takes to pass gun control. 2nd amendment real reason for existing not hunting.
Edna | August 9, 2016
IfHillary wins the election,she will appoint Obama to the UN where he will continue going for a one world government. She will also appoint judges to the supreme court to take over more of our freedoms. They are already in cahoots with foreign entities.Look at Hillary and Bill’s history in Arkansas,the 70+ deaths that occurred as they took over that state. Their foundation is a front for money for their own use,not philantrophyThese people are treasonous criminals!
Frank Hollis Heinbelbach | August 15, 2016
The old sociopathic undercurrent they i find as a common but hidden theme in the Republican Party.
It is why even though I vehemently reject today’s liberal/left/Democrat’s hidden agendas, as well as the sugar coating of moral degeneracy they sell to spiritually blind and/or hedonistic people to garner their support, I also reject the republican or conservative ideology. I reject the libertarian ideology (which has the worst of the both dems and republicans), and the Green Party which is simply a joke.
But as for the teoiblicsns,
This theme of selfishness is all too familiar.
Obviously a socialist welfare state, when taken too far, is a disaster. This is now being proven more perfectly than ever in all of Europe.
But here in this article the problem of conservatives mentality is revealed;
“Please note that my definition of greed, like most conservatives, is much different than that of the liberal left. To them, greed is wanting more than you need. That definition is based upon the precept that in taking more than you need, you are taking away from someone else. If that were true, then the nation’s economy couldn’t have grown over the last 200 years. But to us on the left, greed is all about wanting what someone else has. They want our money, so they tax us to get it.”
Greed IS wanting more than you need.
That is exactly what greed is.
The other thing you described as greed, is most definitely not greed. I was going to call it envy, but since “envy” has a negative connotation associated with it, i won’t even acknowledge it as that.
If person A is starving for food. Person B has feast at their table every day.
Person A has profound longing for the food.
You call that greed? Get a clue. That’s an unbelievably inhumane and unloving mentality. And by your definition, the guy who has daily feasts, but wants even much more food to stockpile for himself in his barn, is not greedy? I mean honestly I feel disgust here and have to laugh at the obscenity of how Cristian republicans are thinking, as it seems to me.
And you think person B should be under no expectation at all by society, by their family, by themselves, by their rulers, or by God, to share food?
Well actuslly, that is a filthy greedy mentality and Jesus said those people will be thrown into hell.
I read at the bottom that you are a missionary. This is the problem in Christian circles – that there is this mentality. I’ve never understood it and never found the ministry necessary to sort it out in any sort of comforting or clarifying manner.
This topic touches on a giant plethora of confusion for me in Christian life, which has been a severe detriment to my life. In fact this unresolved issue alone would have been more than enough to sabotage my life, since it creates a severe dysfunctional misalignment in every regard with my fellow Christians, and it means the percentage of Christians I can relate to are almost zero.
Perhaps something that is part of the issue is that I utterly disagree with your declaration that “humans are not altruistic by nature.”
I find this sentiment disturbing. When I read it, I think “that person’s mind is like a sociopath. They are that way themselves, and have a disturbed outlook of assuming everyone is like that.”
I am altruistic by nature. Since my earliest memories, I have been someone whose heart was filled with brutal anguish at the sight of people suffering. And a desire to see it stop. A natural inclination to help: So severe in fact, that not being nourished myself so as not to be in such misery myself, and not being insulated to see fewer people suffering, and not finding lots of opportunities to see them lifted from the ash heap, not beings able to be involved in that process…
Being the type of person I am, but not having those dynamics in my life caused extremely severe emotional and spiritual damage and collapse.
I wonder if maybe most Christians aren’t like that, or weren’t in their younger years and only became like that at all because of Spiritual convictions later in life. And so they operate from this model you described, which to me is a loveless, harsh, discompassionate model – and that is utterly unworkable for me. Being around Christians who think I’m greedy, when that is not the case at all and in fact it’s usually the people whonthink that way who are, is just an incredible detestable insult to my soul.
It’s such a bizarre thing, this entire aspect of Christian life and Christian/church relations. If you are suffering profoundly because of unmet need, then you are supposed to not want that need met? Because that would be “greedy?”
What kind of bizarre, psychopathic, masochist ideology is that?
Anonymouse1 | September 23, 2016
When I think of what’s really happening to this country and the rest of the world, one very amazing and appropriate song from Pink Floyd comes to mind:
Goodbye Blue Sky…
Did you see the frightened ones
Did you hear the falling bombs
Did you ever wonder
Why we had to run for shelter
When the promise of a brave new world
Unfurled beneath a clear blue sky
Did you see the frightened ones
Did you hear the falling bombs
The flames are all long gone
But the pain lingers on
Goodbye blue sky
Goodbye blue sky