Amen!
GrumpyOldFart sent this to me. I love it! I will make a graphic to add my sidebar.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
-William J. H. Boetcker
Sphere: Related Content
![[Valid RSS]](http://politicalpartypoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
April 4th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Exactly. Unfortunately, every “cannot” listed above has been one of the Left’s talking points for the last 70 years or so. To them, it’s always a zero-sum game. Follow their program, and that’s what you end up with: zero.
April 5th, 2008 at 3:45 am
Snoop, completely O/T, but I thought you might enjoy this.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/doublethink_and_the_liberal_mi.html
Doublethink and the Liberal Mind
Recent polls are showing that by a good 60% margin, Barack Obama is seen as a candidate who can “unify” the nation. This may be the most brilliant example of what George Orwell called “doublethink” in the recent history of the Democratic Party. Think about it: for over thirty, maybe forty years the American public has been variously sermonized and threatened by crusaders in Obama’s same party into embracing not unity, but “diversity.” Call it what you will - brilliant or duplicitous - it is still a masterful political achievement.
For decades students in our schools have been told to “celebrate difference” and to see America as a “salad bowl” rather than the “melting pot” of old. Those who resisted the collective swoon for “diversity” and who descried the resulting balkanization of our educational institutions were forced into “diversity training seminars” and reeducated under the watchful eyes of “diversity officers.” For as Mao Tse Tung famously said, those who oppose progressive change “must go through a stage of compulsion before they can enter the stage of voluntary, conscious change.” But if these polls are correct, and Obama is indeed the great unifier, what will happen then to all of the “diversity officers” and “diversity training” seminars on our college campuses and in our corporations? Will the entire “diversity” superstructure in our society finally be dismantled? Will Democrats, for maybe the first time since JFK or MLK start talking about what unites us rather than what divides us? Will citizens be thought of as “Americans” first and not categorized and rewarded based on skin color? Is Obama, the great unifier, going to finally liberate us from this divisive ideology? Don’t hold your breath.
–SNIP–
One must ask the following: what would have happened in Korea if, as in Vietnam, the press and universities had organized, not a defense of, but a full out assault against America’s “beliefs and habits?” What if they had chanted “Defeat is Victory” and attacked the “justice of our cause?” Would South Korea be free today? On the other hand, if the press had defended our mission in Vietnam and had not made fun of the strategic “domino theory” that formed the basis of U.S. policy in Southeast Asia, would South Vietnam be free today? Could the Cambodian genocide in 1975 have been prevented?
The problem with doublethink is that in the interests of gaining power its practitioners tend to play fast and loose with objective reality.
Let’s grant for “objective reality’s” sake that the 1950 use of “we” excluded black Americans and other non-Europeans. This is an ugly and painful truth. But when Martin Luther King rightly wanted to achieve a more inclusive sense of “we”, he didn’t say to judge people based on the “color of their skin” but instead on the “content of their character.” MLK probably understood that any future sense of “we” would fall apart if Americans were categorized by arbitrary qualities such as skin color.
–SNIP–