Tuesday, 9 October 2012

Lefties Results: “Corrosive Sense Of Entitlement”



Waking up to a breakfast in bed and a glass of orange juice is a lot more relaxing then an article about how 90% of Scots are living off government support. The socialists utopia of 'take and give' seems to hit a real life snag when the takers exceeds the givers; by a mile. Is Canada headed in this direction?

Nine in ten Scots 'living off state's patronage'

 
 English head of Scottish civil service tells his staff to expect an SNP victory in poll
Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, is to highlight official figures showing that only 283,080 households north of the border – 12 per cent of the total – pay more in tax than they receive in public services.
She will tell delegates that, because the public sector is seen as the key provider of everything from housing to employment, state spending now accounts for more than half Scotland’s wealth.
She will blame Alex Salmond, the SNP First Minister, and his Labour predecessors for nurturing a “corrosive sense of entitlement” among voters that has prevented her party making a comeback in Scotland.
Kenny Gibson, a Nationalist MSP, described it as Miss Davidson’s “Mitt Romney moment”. He added: “At least Mitt Romney only insulted around half of Americans, while Ruth Davidson believes almost 90 per cent of Scots do not 'contribute’ to society.”
 

Friday, 3 August 2012

As I Said, Haters Hate In The Name Of Tolerance...

 I.E You can love someone who has a lifestyle of swearing at others AND disagree with them swearing at others. It is okay to disagree with a position and love someone. 3 cheers for this outstanding employee!

Wednesday, 1 August 2012

Liberty Lovers Embarrass Left Wing Control Freaks

Rahm Emanuel: “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values”.

It seems like Chicago alderman Joe Moreno is (was) trying to block expansion of the company. Not good when you live in 'the land of liberty' Joe.

Seems like the terrible political comments and actions did not have the impact they intended. Sometimes it's best for liberty crushing left wing politicians to simply say nothing.

The absurd and embarrassing hypocrisy of "I will not tolerate you because you do not tolerate a particular viewpoint I hold" appears to be losing its appeal as more and more people begin to actually think through issues.  I find it most ironic that several people  who support as moral the homosexual lifestyle on the basis of "loving others" are some of the most angry, bitter people when it comes to loving those they disagree with.
Case in point (a commenter writes): f%$# Chik-fil-A and f%$# religion if it condones exclusion. There is no room for intolerance in this world anymore. And f%$# your guidelines. I'll say what's on my mind and in my heart. 

I think that commenter's actions were very exclusionary. He excluded me from the "I will respect you" category. He excluded others from "being in a swear free environment" by forcing his agenda (swearing, hatred) on others; contrary to my request.  His own words condemn his posture of tolerance. He did not tolerate those he disagreed with.
As another commenter astutely pointed out: tolerance is a one way street.


Here's an experiment:

Put your hand up if you read any intelligent defence on the subject of blocking Chick-fil-A from entry to a city for an executive holding a controversial opinion. None to hardly any, I bet. Now, if you are following this story, I am sure you viewed LOADS of complaints and accusations against this company (intolerant, bigoted etc).

I challenge the left to make an argument, not an emotional attack. Until then, enjoy the results of their failed attempts to squash liberty:


And we thought Tim Horton's was bad for a line up!

Friday, 27 July 2012

Thinking Outside The Box

Chick-fil-A Will Not Back Down

My take: People seem unable to understand some simple logic.
Can my wife say, "I love you, but do not appreciate you being mean to me" all at the same time? Of course! We separate the issue of being mean from her love for me. 
It is just as legitimate for my wife to disagree with homosexuality and still love the person.  The logic of "you must agree with my conduct to prove you love me" is absurd.  We can correct our kids and love them throughout the whole process. 

"You are intolerant if you do not agree with my conduct" is such an immature position. It is not rooted in logic or facts.
1. "Being gay is not morally wrong"; is a proposition. It is either true or false.
2. "Being gay is morally wrong"; is a proposition. It is either true or false.

What makes 1. okay to say, but not 2.?  They are both propositions that are either true or false.  Some believe 1. is true, others believe 2. is true.  Name calling (intolerant, less of a person etc) if one holds the other side only highlights the immaturity of a position (on either side of the debate).  Our first call is to love others, not condemn others.  We can love others and disagree with conduct.

Interesting Read:

All of a sudden, biting into a fried chicken sandwich has become a political statement.
Chick-fil-A, the fast-food chain known for putting faith ahead of profits by closing on Sundays, is standing firm in its opposition to gay marriage after touching off a furor earlier this month.
Gay rights groups have called for a boycott, the Jim Henson Co. pulled its Muppet toys from kids' meals, and politicians in Boston and Chicago told the chain it is not welcome there.
Across the Bible Belt, where most of the 1,600 restaurants are situated, Christian conservatives have thrown their support behind the Atlanta-based company, promising to buy chicken sandwiches and waffle fries next week on "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day."
The latest skirmish in the nation's culture wars began when Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press that the company was "guilty as charged" for backing "the biblical definition of a family." In a later radio interview, he ratcheted up the rhetoric: "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.'"
That fired up gay rights advocates, including a group that waged a campaign against the company in recent years by publicizing $3 million in contributions that the Cathy family foundation has made to conservative organizations such as the Family Research Council.
"This solidifies Chick-fil-A as being closely aligned with some of the most vicious anti-gay voices in the country," said Carlos Maza of Equality Matters.
A Chicago alderman vowed to block a Chick-fil-A proposed in his district, and Mayor Rahm Emanuel supported him, saying, "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values." Boston Mayor Thomas Menino wrote in a letter to Cathy: "There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it."
In announcing it was pulling its toys, the Jim Henson company said it has "celebrated and embraced diversity for over 50 years." It directed its revenue from the Chick-fil-A toys to GLAAD, a leading gay rights organization.
On the other side of the debate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, declared next Wednesday "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" to support a business "whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values." Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who like Huckabee ran for president as a darling of social conservatives, joined the cause along with religious leaders.
"As the son of a dairy farmer who milked many a cow, I plan to 'Eat Mor Chikin' and show my support by visiting Chick-fil-A next Wednesday," the Rev. Billy Graham said in a statement, referring to the slogan in the company's ads, which feature cows urging people to eat poultry.
The Rev. Roger Oldham, spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention, said many Christians want to support businesses owned by fellow believers, and the loyalty intensifies "when Christians see a fellow Christian being persecuted."
"They will come out of the woodwork when a theologically based position is being politicized by individuals for their own purposes," he said.
The Cathy family has never hid its Southern Baptist faith. Since Dan Cathy's father, Truett, opened the first Chick-fil-A in 1967, the restaurants have been closed on Sundays, and the company refused to reconsider during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, sacrificing profits. It also boasts that the Chick-fil-A Bowl is the only college football bowl game with an invocation.
Chick-fil-A posted more than $4.1 billion in sales last year, most of it below the Mason-Dixon Line. Just 14 of its restaurants are in the six states and the District of Columbia where gay marriage is legal. Massachusetts has just two locations, both more than 10 miles from Boston. Illinois, which does not have same-sex marriage, has around a dozen, though only one in Chicago.
The company is well-positioned to come through the criticism relatively unscathed, even if it loses new markets in the North and elsewhere, University of Georgia marketing professor Sundar Bharadwaj said. He said that is because Chick-fil-A basically reflects the politics of its customers.
At a downtown Atlanta Chick-fil-A on Thursday, customers were divided over the company's stance.
"If you're a Christian, you believe in the Bible. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong. (Cathy's) absolutely right," Marci Troutman said over her breakfast.
Her business partner, Steve Timpson, said he chose not to eat at Chick-fil-A: "You've got to be more tolerant if you're going to operate in the wider market in this country."
Nearby, Dustin Keller offered another view of Cathy: "It's his opinion. He's entitled to it. I'm just here to eat."

Thursday, 26 July 2012

A Smart NDP Dude Finally Explains Reality

As an intellectually honest NDP supporter, I feel it is necessary to explain the NDP constitution we finally posted on our website.  Although it is mostly administrative happenings, there are some key points I want directed to you.  I would also like to highlight that I am very smart and it is quite possible this will be the most honest and genuine explanation you will ever find; so buckle up and learn!  Although I stand behind our platform, I am not arguing why our preamble is good, I am merely explaining what it means. 

Please review:


Marked in red above, each number I comment on:

1.       We the NDP party have laid the groundwork and foundation for wealth generation in Canada: democratic socialist principles.  Although we cite public affairs as the branch in which our principles will extend themselves through, it must be known that our principles in action will necessitate serious involvement, oversight, ownership and taxation of the fee market.  Read 2, 3 and 4 and incorporate said definition into our involvement and you will soon see the obvious connection.   Please also note that we believe that social, economic and political progress all fall under the jurisdiction of public affairs.  We do not define to what extent our powers will extend to, however, judging by how we define democratic socialism; you can take a pretty good guess.

2.       This is the crux of the issue.  We believe in economic, social and political progress.  The context: democratic socialism. The underling foundation: production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people (see #1, administered by public affairs) within a sustainable environment and economy AND NOT to the making of profit.  When the private sector owns something, its motive is profit.  Profit looks after the needs of those who own it: the capitalist owners.  The dog scraps are left for the low wage earner.  This leaves many in a disparaging position where they are left to go without.  The remedy to this is for the government to own the means of production (machines, technology etc.) and distribution (products etc.).  The government then takes the rewards of ownership of said channels and offers the dignity and freedom to each Canadian, not just a lucky select few who happen to make the profit.  By the public affairs controlling the means of production and distribution, we can ensure we live up to our commercials that we indeed are fighting for you.  The enemy: profit had by a few, and owned privately. Our remedy? As stated: government control of economic activity and distribution of services.

3.       To achieve #2, the status quo will not do.  People owning business making a profit will always give the choice for some to excel and others to suffer and fall behind.  This injustice ought to be remedied through action.  Look at #3 and you will see how we intend to affect our vision for a fairer Canada.  The quick translation: change laws for government to own and control ‘monopolistic’ organizations.  Since there is no actual monopoly in Canada (other than government in business) we really mean ‘big ticket items’. Like: banks and oil fields.  Large, capital intensive organizations will, quite frankly, be owned by the government.  “Modify” means change from privately owned, to publically owned.  “Control” means to run, oversee, direct and plan.  “Social planning” means we the government will do this.  Social ownership means the people benefit from large ‘profits’ from the private sector, through government planning/ownership.
4.       Dignity and freedom of the individual is very hard to define accurately as we do not really explain what this means. However, in the context of what I explained so far, I can confidently tell you this:  Value of a person is based on our definition of freedom and dignity being met.  We require public companies ‘profit’ from the private sector to be converted to government owned/run division that releases extra money into the hands of all: especially the impoverished.  This transfer of wealth increases dignity.  We disagree with the capitalist who thinks learning skills (even if at lower wage) and hard work dignifies a person.  We believe a person having things (regardless if it is provided by others) is what dignifies them.   This is how we argue for dignity and seek ownership of private profits.  Dignity is not earned by an individual, it is imputed by government. A key difference between democratic socialism and free market thinking.  Under our system, everyone is dignified, not just those who 'work and get'.With respect to freedom: the impoverished is not ‘free’ to run things.  They are not ‘free’ to do fun jobs.  They are bound to low wage work.  Under our system of shred ownership, this will empower the individual to work on jobs that pay them good money so they are ‘free’ to live with dignity.  This is how we connect freedom to dignity: and it is all based on government ownership of profits. 
Again, now you know exactly what our constitution means and how it will impact Canada.

A Smart NDP Dude Finally Explains Reality

As an intellectually honest NDP supporter, I feel it is necessary to explain the NDP constitution we finally posted on our website.  Although it is mostly administrative happenings, there are some key points I want directed to you.  I would also like to highlight that I am very smart and it is quite possible this will be the most honest and genuine explanation you will ever find; so buckle up and learn!  Although I stand behind our platform, I am not arguing why our preamble is good, I am merely explaining what it means. 

Please review:


Marked in red above, each number I comment on:

1.       We the NDP party have laid the groundwork and foundation for wealth generation in Canada: democratic socialist principles.  Although we cite public affairs as the branch in which our principles will extend themselves through, it must be known that our principles in action will necessitate serious involvement, oversight, ownership and taxation of the fee market.  Read 2, 3 and 4 and incorporate said definition into our involvement and you will soon see the obvious connection.   Please also note that we believe that social, economic and political progress all fall under the jurisdiction of public affairs.  We do not define to what extent our powers will extend to, however, judging by how we define democratic socialism; you can take a pretty good guess.

2.       This is the crux of the issue.  We believe in economic, social and political progress.  The context: democratic socialism. The underling foundation: production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people (see #1, administered by public affairs) within a sustainable environment and economy AND NOT to the making of profit.  When the private sector owns something, its motive is profit.  Profit looks after the needs of those who own it: the capitalist owners.  The dog scraps are left for the low wage earner.  This leaves many in a disparaging position where they are left to go without.  The remedy to this is for the government to own the means of production (machines, technology etc.) and distribution (products etc.).  The government then takes the rewards of ownership of said channels and offers the dignity and freedom to each Canadian, not just a lucky select few who happen to make the profit.  By the public affairs controlling the means of production and distribution, we can ensure we live up to our commercials that we indeed are fighting for you.  The enemy: profit had by a few, and owned privately. Our remedy? As stated: government control of economic activity and distribution of services.

3.       To achieve #2, the status quo will not do.  People owning business making a profit will always give the choice for some to excel and others to suffer and fall behind.  This injustice ought to be remedied through action.  Look at #3 and you will see how we intend to affect our vision for a fairer Canada.  The quick translation: change laws for government to own and control ‘monopolistic’ organizations.  Since there is no actual monopoly in Canada (other than government in business) we really mean ‘big ticket items’. Like: banks and oil fields.  Large, capital intensive organizations will, quite frankly, be owned by the government.  “Modify” means change from privately owned, to publically owned.  “Control” means to run, oversee, direct and plan.  “Social planning” means we the government will do this.  Social ownership means the people benefit from large ‘profits’ from the private sector, through government planning/ownership.

4.       Dignity and freedom of the individual is very hard to define accurately as we do not really explain what this means. However, in the context of what I explained so far, I can confidently tell you this:  Value of a person is based on our definition of freedom and dignity being met.  We require public companies ‘profit’ from the private sector to be converted to government owned/run division that releases extra money into the hands of all: especially the impoverished.  This transfer of wealth increases dignity.  We disagree with the capitalist who thinks learning skills(even if at lower wage) and hard work dignifies a person.  We believe a person having things (regardless if it is provided by others) is what dignifies them.   This is how we argue for dignity and seek ownership of private profits.  Dignity is not earned by an individual, it is imputed by government. Key difference between democratic socialism and free market thinking.  Under our system, everyone is dignified, not just those who 'work and get'.With respect to freedom: the impoverished is not ‘free’ to run things.  They are not ‘free’ to do fun jobs.  They are bound to low wage work.  Under our system of shred ownership, this will empower the individual to work on jobs that pay them good money so they are ‘free’ to live with dignity.  This is how we connect freedom to dignity: and it is all based on government ownership of profits. 

Again, now you know exactly what our constitution means and how it will impact Canada.

Wednesday, 25 July 2012

It Clearly Is Harpers Fault. Clearly.

"...After leading Canada into the worst recession of this generation Conservatives have an another economic downturn on their hands..."
Just in case you are too slow of mind to have known, please allow the genius NDP to enlighten you.
The Conservatives led us into recession by:
-Conspiring to have international banks and lenders make bad loans
-Created overnight lending terror that caused the LIBOR rate to skyrocket
-Led AIG into almost a 100billion dollar collapse
-Instructed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make terrible decisions as to who they are loaning money to
-Forced Europe to overspend, over borrow and run out of money
-Persuaded the US to make a 750 billion bailout so they could jack their debt levels to 'stimulate' the economy
-Were the 'leaders' behind the near total collapse of confidence in a non liquid financial market.
Did you know that the Conservatives led us (and therefore the world) into the 08' recession?  If you did not know that, well, now you do.  Once again, we can lean in on the NDP to completely deny emotion and only focus on logic and facts.
Quite frankly, I did not know Canada and it's conservative leaders had such an influence to cause all this havoc whereby the NDP would be justified in claiming they led us into the recession.  But hey, we learn something new everyday.
I am glad the NDP support base is so smart that they can understand the clear and logical connection between the truth of the NDP's claim and the evil powers our conservatives have over the world economy.
I stand with the NDP in ignoring the 'slanted and bias' bankers and economists who claim Canada fared very well against the rest of the world.  We want facts, not economic data! 
(It was not the harsh free market that hurt the poor and middle class...it was Harper.  When you understand the government is your provider and not the free market, you will be set free.  It's Harper attacking the poor because he is responsible for them.  Failure to respond to your responsibility is an attack.  Do you see how logical the NDP are?) 

Tuesday, 24 July 2012

12 Signs That Spain Is Shifting Gears From Recession To Depression

Received this note, very interesting read:


Where have we seen this before?  Bond yields soar above 7 percent danger level. Check. The stock market crashes to new lows. Check. Industrial activity plummets like a rock and the economy contracts. Check. The unemployment rate skyrockets to more than 20 percent. Check. The bursting of a massive real estate bubble pushes the banking system to the brink of implosion. Check. Broke local governments beg the broke national government for bailouts. Check. The international community pressures the national government to implement deep austerity measures which will slow down the economy even more and hordes of violent protesters take to the streets. Check. All of this happened in Greece, it is happening right now in Spain, and mark my words it will eventually happen in the United States. Every debt bubble eventually bursts, and right now Spain is experiencing a level of economic pain that very, very few people saw coming. The recession in Spain is rapidly becoming a full-blown economic depression, and at this point there is no hope and no light at the end of the tunnel.

The bad news for the global economy is that Spain is much larger than Greece. According to the United Nations, the Greek economy is the 32nd largest economy in the world. The Spanish economy, on the other hand, is the 4th largest economy in the eurozone and the 12th largest economy on the entire planet. It is nearly five times the size of the Greek economy.

Financial markets all over the globe are very nervous right now because if the Spanish government ends up asking for a full-blown bailout it could spell the end for the eurozone. There simply is not enough money to do the same kind of thing for Spain that is being done for Greece.

Of course European officials are going to do their best to keep the eurozone from collapsing, but what they have completely failed to do is to keep these countries from falling into depression.

As I have written about previously, Greece has already been in an economic depression for some time.

I warned that Spain, Italy, Portugal and a bunch of other European nations were going down the exact same path.

Now we are watching a virtual replay of what happened in Greece take place in Spain.

Unfortunately, the global financial system may not be able to handle a complete implosion of the Spanish economy.

The following are 12 signs that Spain is shifting gears from recession to depression....

#1 At one point on Monday, the IBEX stock market index fell to 5,905, which was the lowest level in nearly ten years. When it hit 5,905 that represented a drop of about 12 percent over just two trading days. If that happened in the United States, it would be the equivalent of the Dow falling by about 1500 points in 48 hours.

#2 So far this year, the Spanish stock market is down more than 25 percent. Back in 2008, the IBEX 35 was well over 15,000. Today it is sitting just above 6,000.

#3 Spain has banned many forms of short selling for 3 months.

#4 The yield on 10 year Spanish bonds is now well above the 7 percent "danger level".

#5 Thanks to the problems in Spain, the euro continues to fall like a rock. On Monday it hit a new two year low against the U.S. dollar, and it is near a twelve year low against the Japanese yen.

#6 During the first quarter of 2012, the Spanish economy contracted by 0.3 percent. During the second quarter of 2012, the Spanish economy contracted by 0.4 percent.

#7 Local governments all over Spain are flat broke and need to be bailed out by the broke national government. The following is from a recent CNBC article....

Adding to Madrid's woes, media reports suggested another half a dozen of Spain's 17 regional authorities, facing an undeclared funding crisis, were ready to follow Valencia in seeking aid from the central government.

#8 The percentage of bad loans on the books of Spanish banks has reached an 18 year high. European officials have already promised a 100 billion euro bailout for Spain's troubled banking system, but most analysts agree that 100 billion euros will not be nearly enough.

#9 Spanish industrial output declined for the ninth month in a row in May.

#10 The unemployment rate in Spain is up to an astounding 24.6 percent. The unemployment rate in Spain is already higher than it was in the United States at the peak of the Great Depression of the 1930s.

#11 The youth unemployment rate in Spain is now over 52 percent.

#12 The Spanish government has just announced a whole bunch of new tax increases and spending cuts which will cause the Spanish economy to slow down even more. In response to these austerity measures, people are taking to the streets all over Spain. Last week, 100,000 demonstrators poured into the streets to protest in Madrid alone.

Sadly, the nightmare in Spain is just beginning.

If the yield on 10 year Spanish bonds stays above 7 percent, that is going to be a really bad sign. According to the Wall Street Journal, the 7 percent level is key as far as investor confidence is concerned....

Monday's dramatic market moves suggest Spain may be stuck in a spiral that culminates in a bailout from other euro-zone countries.

"The rise in the 10-year yield well beyond 7% carries a very distinct reminder of events in Greece in April 2010, Ireland in October 2010 and Portugal in February 2011," said analysts at Bank of New York Mellon. "In each case, a decisive move beyond 7% signaled the start of a collapse in investor confidence that, in each case, led to a bailout within weeks," they added.

So keep an eye on that number in the weeks ahead.

Meanwhile, the Spanish economy continues to get worse with each passing month.

So just how bad are things in Spain right now?

Just check out this excerpt from a recent article by Mark Grant....

Recently two noted Spanish economists were interviewed. One was always an optimist and one was always a pessimist. The optimist droned on and on about how bad things were in Spain, the dire situation with the regional debt, the huge problems overtaking the Spanish banks and the imminent collapse of the Spanish economy. In the end he said that the situation was so bad that the Spanish people were going to have to eat manure. The pessimist was shocked by the comments of his colleague who had never heard him speak in such a manner. When it was the pessimist’s turn to speak he said that he agreed with the optimist with one exception; the manure would soon run out.

That may make you laugh, but for those in Europe going through these horrific economic conditions it is no laughing matter.

On Sunday, Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras actually told former U.S. president Bill Clinton that Greece is already in a "Great Depression".

Like Spain, the unemployment rate in Greece is well above 20 percent and the youth unemployment rate is above 50 percent.

The only reason the Greek financial system has not totally collapsed is because of outside assistance, but now there are indications that the assistance may soon be cut off.

At this point there are persistent rumors that the IMF does not plan to give any more aid money to Greece unless Greece "shapes up".

Meanwhile, the suffering in Greece just gets worse and worse.

Sadly, most Americans pay very little attention to what is going on in Greece and Spain.

Most Americans just assume that we will always have "the greatest economy on earth" and that we can take prosperity for granted.

Unfortunately, the truth is that the United States already has more government debt per capita than either Greece or Spain does.

Just like Greece and Spain, we are also rapidly traveling down the road to economic oblivion, and depression-like conditions will arrive in this country soon enough.

So enjoy these last months of economic prosperity while you still can.

A whole lot of pain is on the horizon.


Help Make A Difference By Sharing These Articles

Thursday, 19 July 2012

A Reader Asks How I Resolve Being A Non-Socialist-Christian

A reader writes:

Hey Ryan,

Great Post! I really appreciate your last quote:

"I am so fed up with working my butt off to support a cultural mindset of entitlement with my tax dollars."

I whole heartily agree... The Occupy Movement, the picketing/rioting students in Quebec, and even the sentiment of entitlement that I get from some of the homeless people that frequently attend a soup kitchen that my husband preaches at every now and then... it's all putting a bad taste in my mouth.

(My husband and I were joking around during the Occupy movement last year... that it would make a funny reality TV show, to kidnap all the occupiers while they were sleeping and move them to a country in the Third world... it'd be funny to see some attitudes adjusted about their sense of "rights"... )

At the same time, I do see how some people in society DO need help and ongoing provision from others. Since leaving C4C, I took a job as an administrative assistant for an organization that provides ongoing housing and support for men with mental illness (schizophrenia,depression,o.c.d...etc.)Our organization is the difference between mentally ill men living on the streets, ending up in jail, or living in a caring Christian community that ensures they have a safe place to sleep, regular meals and are taking their proper medication. I've seen first hand the difference it makes because these guys receive ODSP and are looked after. There is no way these guys could hold down any kind of job that could support themselves.

... Ryan, even though it's been a few years, I would still say that I know you somewhat.I know you love God and read your Bible. I know that you know what a soft place God has in his heart for the Poor.

All this to say, I'm just curious how you reconcile the two issues.... Socialism and the epidemic of entitlement and laziness that is being cultivated in our country... (Ugh!) While at the same time, seriously taking on the call of Jesus to serve "even the least of these", as if we were serving Him...

I often feel like my heart goes back and forth as I see the need around me... and at the same time I see the abuse that's happening in the system.

Comments?


Margie (Rennie) Becker
Hi Margie,

Great question and thanks for sharing. Here is how I resolve the issue. Compassion comes from our free will.  Jesus shows us how to love our neighbour.  When we read the story about the man on the road, notice whom Jesus identifies as the one who loves his neighbour: the one who: 1. Saw a need (saw him and helped him) 2. Had resources to meet the need (paid the bill and said he would pay more if needed upon his return) and 3. Had physical contact with the individual.  Thus, when we meet a need out of these things, true compassion is demonstrated.  The ‘justification’ the left often uses is that they are meeting a need therefore loving others.  The problem is, it’s devoid of a personal connection (it’s a government program who get their money from ‘some taxpayer’).  The compassion is not the free will of the individual, but a forced law.  Everything you mentioned that is amazing, noble and helpful should be done…but my argument is that it’s better to do this privately  (faith group, personally, corporately, charity etc).  This way, it’s compassion directed from resources derived from one’s free will, not forced taxation.  Forcing taxes and pushing programs is not compassion; even if the program seems nice.  When help is offered personally, the person who is helped can tie the help to a relationship (group, person etc) that they can be connected with.  Resources being tied directly to the help is far more life changing and powerful then tossing cash into a pot and letting gov. distribute it via programs; however well intended.  I argue for our personal connection being tied to our resources to demonstrate compassion: far more life changing then government will ever be.  The left argues ‘that’s not a practical idea because there are greedy people who will not give’.  This is true.  I have met far more greedy socialists (limited resources) then greedy business owners…infact, most of the richest people are also the most generous people.  Interesting that they ‘got rich’ by meeting other’s needs…now they use their riches to meet other’s needs.  Either by profit or by freely giving, we were built and created to meet other’s needs.  I cringe when government butchers this and gets in the way.  I hope this helps.

First Nations Is Not Embarrassed, They Simply Want More

Don't you love when the left offers emotional tirades in response to pointing out the obvious connection of socialism, entitlement and the pitfalls thereof?
One of my main points within this blog: if you 'live socialism out', you actually run into exactly what we are seeing in this video: entitlement breeding low accountability and ruined lives (while a select few enjoy)...all off the backs of hard working wealth earners.
This video represents the left's 7billion (per year) showcase of socialism in action. (Gee, they should do a blog "Socialism In Action".)
Why have accountability when you think it's your money? If you are reading this, it ain't your business what I do with my money...just like it isn’t your business what First Nations does with their money...or so the left thinks.
It is irrelevant in the socialists mind what they do because of the socialists axiomatic point: transfer of wealth is also transfer of ownership. They own the money; therefore they not accountable to the source.
If the left says, "Ryan, you are wrong, we do believe in accountability!", then they would be denying the justification on which they levied the taxes in the first place. Consider this: if the money belongs to the hard working Canadians, then it should stay with them, afterall, it belongs to them. Thus, no tax and no transfer of ownership. If the socialists argue, "The money needs to be transferred to First Nations because they are entitled to it." (as is the status quo), then by definition, the First Nations group owns the money and they are not accountable to taxpayers, because the money is theirs. Dear left: you can't have it both ways.
The left can't stand accountability except to hypocritically expose others; what a watered down use of the term. Accountability demands personal responsibility, ownership and consequences to bad choices and rewards/promotion to good choices.  These yucky 'corperate' traits are what the left taxes the s*#% out of Canadians to flee from.
With socialism in action you get: an oligarchy that screws people into a life of utter dependence of scraps from the meal table.  Dang, that sounds like a good definition, nah…too accurate.
Too bad the socialists are experts in emotional outbursts and generally seem unable to logically debate these points. That means this joke of a system will continue to ruin people’s lives unless others will stand up and say something without fear. (Enter Ezra, thanks!)
I am so fed up with working my butt off to support a cultural mindset of entitlement with my tax dollars.  I’m only 32 years old.  How the heck to you older people cope with this garbage?

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain