
Will the Race Hustlers Prevail?
In my recent interview with J.C. Watts, he took issue with Mitt Romney’s controversial comment, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.”
Romney’s supporters claim that the media has used this quote out of context, but Watts doesn’t see it that way. “I didn’t take what he said out of context,” the ex-congressman told me, “I took it in context. What he [Romney] was saying was, ‘Let’s keep people trapped in poverty, and if we need to give them a few more food stamps … we’ll do that.’”
In other words, Romney was simply waiving aside low-income people, which implied that everyone accepts the fact that they are a permanent underclass that can always be appeased with a token increase in their freebies.
That, of course, plays right into the hands of the Democrats, who see themselves as saviors of the poor. It’s what is known as arrogance of the ignorant. While Barack Obama may think of himself as the king of compassion for increasing the number of people on food stamps from 32 million to 46 million during his first three years in office, Watts isn’t impressed.
“I don’t think we should measure compassion by how many people are on food stamps,” he said. “I think we should measure compassion by how few people are on food stamps … because we helped them climb the ladder of economic opportunity.”
The dichotomy between how the left and the right view welfare is not just more fodder for an intellectual debate. It puts a spotlight on the reality that progressivism is actually the greatest enemy of the poor.
More to the point, it exposes the big lie of progressivism — that it’s not only compassionate but moral to make people less responsible and more dependent on government. And it goes without saying that dependency on government really means dependency on one’s neighbors, i.e., those who actually foot the bill for government’s dependency programs.
The 2012 presidential campaign is going to be a showdown between two diametrically opposed views of how best to help America’s poor. Naïve soul that I am, I did not believe that Barack Obama would run on a transparent class-warfare platform, because I thought he was smart enough to realize it would be a losing message.
As it turns out, however, I not only was wrong about his willingness to embrace the politics of envy, I may also be proven wrong in my belief that a majority of Americans would not buy into it. As Obama’s favorability ratings keep bouncing back up toward 50 percent, the only plausible explanation is that close to half of America’s voting public is so addicted to government benefits that they are prepared to reelect a Marxist who has clearly demonstrated that he intends to completely free himself of the constraints of the Constitution.
A whole industry of race hustlers has evolved from the far left’s obsession with constantly expanding welfare programs. They are the charlatans who inflate their egos and wallets by pushing for ever-greater black dependency. These victimization peddlers have succeeded in keeping millions of blacks from participating in the American Dream by selling them on the notion that they are victims of white oppression.
All of them would have to be incredibly ignorant or totally uninformed to ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary: millions of blacks who are doctors, attorneys, engineers, corporate executives, college and professional football and basketball coaches, major league baseball managers, politicians, and, yes, president of the United States! Why has white oppression been incapable of stopping these millions of blacks from rising to the top?
The race-hustling crowd serves as a constant reminder that it was African blacks who, for more than three hundred years, captured and sold their fellow Africans to white slave traders, setting the stage not only for generations of blacks to toil in slavery, but for the racial tensions that have become part and parcel to American culture over the past one hundred and fifty years.
Like the African blacks who sold their brothers and sisters into slavery centuries ago, today’s race hustlers are selling their brothers and sisters into the arms of the unelected bureaucrats who run the Federal Welfare Plantation.
The truth is that the whole notion of compassionate progressivism is a scam. As any casual student of history knows, the early progressive presidents — Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt — were transparently racist. Wilson, in fact, ordered the segregation of the federal Civil Service in 1913. The military was also segregated in World War I, and continued to be segregated under FDR during World War II.
Finally, along came Lyndon Johnson in 1963 with his grandiose Great Society plans, which lured blacks into a life of permanent victimization and dependency. While one might argue that Johnson’s intentions were noble, the end result of his taxpayer-funded generosity was that it ramped-up federal welfare programs, which in turn catalyzed the race-hustling industry.
J.C. Watts is right. “Fixing” the safety net helps perpetuate a permanent underclass in the black community. Republicans need to stand firm on the issue of welfare. The idea that we can always repair the safety net is, in the vernacular of Zig Ziglar, “stinkin thinkin.”
Whoever goes head to head with Barack Obama had better be prepared to make the case for why capitalism trumps welfare and wealth redistribution when it comes to improving the lot of the poorest among us. If he is not able to do so, he will, in all likelihood, lose.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.





No doubt, in the long and short term, this worthless government agency has done more harm to this nation than any other agency. This department is directly responsible for the deliberate dumbing down and brainwashing kids in this country since it’s creation in 1978-79 by then president Jimmy Carter whose only reason for creating this worthless department was to keep a promise to the Marxist National Teacher’s Unions who had supported him in 1976, but only if he would give them their own department. Jimmy delivered on that promise, and year by year, they have become more and more dictatorial and now under the Obama regime, this worthless department has taken 100 percent control of public ecucation, thus eradicating all local and state control, and is also the Only Banking System that Funds The Student Loans that Private Lenders used to make, thus giving the government even more Fascistic and Absolute Control of teh nation. The Dumbed Down and Brainwashed Children have been cheated out of the Opportunities that would have come with a Decent Academic Education which they have not been provided, and at the same time that intellectual growth was not taking place, they were also being brainwashed into What To Think by Dumbed Down Brainwashed Teachers receiving directions from the U.S. Department of Education and From the National Teacher’s Union Leadership, all of which are Marxists, Socialists or Communists. A nation cannot survive, much less thrive, when a majority of the
Robert,
Sing it! Rail against the machine.
As it happens, I don’t see how “O” can lose… unless his base decides he is too “far-right” of center.
Crazy I know, but according to them:
1. War is over – except where the wounds caused by Bush still heal over
2. Peace and love reign – except where the wounds caused by Bush still heal over
3. The economy is almost fixed – except where the wounds caused by Bush still heal over
4. etc. ad nauseum
To govt employees, and welfare recipients, these are happy days. To the TBTF bankers, and those “capitalists” on the govt teat, these are happy days.
Nearly 100 years of progressivism has left us ready for the next harvest. We were harvested and we will be again soon. Nothing will be allowed to stand in their way now.
Only those who are not connected to govt are suffering – and though we may be numerous – too many of us watch TV and believe there are happy days elsewhere – and they would too but for Republicans or Tea Partiers (or Peasant Saboteurs). They are lining up to be harvested.
We will need more than facts and figures to win in Nov.
And we look at Rombama and see a man who will keep the bread and circuses flowing.
“O” will run to the right of Rombama. Facts and figures don’t matter to those on the gravy train.
The MSM will cover their guy – hiding his cover ups, his scams, his corruption, his 30,000 drones to watch not-violent citizens. …
Just sayin…
AMEN!
Here we go……again.
“Why has white oppression been incapable of stopping these millions of blacks from rising to the top?”
Because other whites (think Charlton Heston) and blacks crossed political lines, joined together and stood up to wrongful discrimination. Heston and Brando both speak in following video, which is circa 1963.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og0QBldrKd4
Here is the full length video of Marlon Brando, James Baldwin, Harry Belafonte, Charlton Heston, Joseph Minklelwitz, and Sidney Poitier.
Marlon Brando who is at his best speaks about how backs sold backs into slavery. All of the participants in the round table discussion are at their best, really. The video is riveting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MruG888gH50
The key is to provide the poor with a “better wheelbarrow” that will give them back their self-respect and let them believe they can and will rise above their current circumstances. How to do that is the question and one that must be answered and communicated clearly if America as we know it survives another 50 years. I’m working on a book with a plan that says precisely how. The rights are there; it’s the techniques and the enthusiasm that are not.
For the Progressives and the Far Left, this is not about “helping” the poor; it’s about power and control of massive voting blocks by making them dependent on the government. It’s political racism, which is no different than being a sharecropper in the South in the 1920’s and 1930’s or a slave before the Civil War or an illegal immigrant today. The technique is to enthrall with false promises, courtesy of the left.
The one thing the Far Left never provides is real hope that life for the poor and disadvantaged can actually change and will, and that is their Achilles heel. Now if we can only take advantage of that weakness …….
BTW, it was the Southern Democrats who created Jim Crow and the White Citizen Councils and the KKK to terrorize the blacks from Reconstruction until the 1960′s. It was only then that the Republicans managed to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act over the objections of a lot of Southern Democrat Senators. To paraphrase the commentator, Paul Harvey, ..”and that’s the rest of the story.”
This country is NOT about safety nets. It’s about individual guts and pioneers and people who want to succeed and do, no matter what it takes. We have a long tradition of guts and tons of accomplishments, and we need to remember that history, especially today when many on the left are trying to tell us to give up and trust them and the govt and not our own good sense and our dreams.
My grandfather lost his house in the Depression and worked and got it back and became successful. My father developed MS in his late 30′s, but wouldn’t become dependent on the govt. Instead he worked until retirement and became very successful and well known and a model for many others with disabilities. I’ ve had students with learning disabilities who now have 2 degrees. I’ve had students who couldn’t read, so I taught them.
I could tell you similar stories I know of family and friends who experienced terrible tragedy, but found the guts to fight and succeed and overcome. It’s not about safety nets that will only take away your strength and your self-image. It’s about guts and hard work and the desire to succeed. There are hundreds of examples, and all of us know at least one. Learn from them and teach others how to follow in their same footsteps.
This may sound like nick picking, but the statement below is a misnomer. Whoa, did I say that? (Better get my ducks lined up here, I think I’m starting to sweat).
“These victimization peddlers have succeeded in keeping millions of blacks from participating in the American Dream…”
This statement purports to believe that somehow people of a certain heritage do not have free will or free choice, and that they may have simply been conned, or even forced, into accepting the dictatorial mandates of the vp’s (victimization peddlers). This is pure malarkey. All humans of course have free will. Therefore, it’s a safe bet to conclude that if someone (anyone) chooses to participate in some endeavor, or not, it’s a choice made by that individual, and not some outside influence. So why do so many choose not to participate in the American Dream? You figure it out (hint: it might have something to do with that ever growing “something-for-nothing” mentality).
I’ve noticed that there’s a bell curve ( like the I.Q. scale) for every human trait. There are some people who just don’t have the capability to “make it” in society because of various shortcomings. I’ve seen them at work, slow people with a poor work ethic personality disorders, and so on.
No sympathy, huh? I remember reading in the local newspaper about how the panhandlers and drug and alcohol addicted street people were driving customers away from the city’s downtown. To paraphrase on woman, “Walking down the sidewalk, there was a man sprawled on the sidewalk. Asleep? Passed out? Unconscious? Dead? I don’t think I’ll be shopping in downtown ________ anymore.” So this hurts business, at least here on the local level.
Training programs just can’t help some people climb the economic ladder.
“free will” vs incentives…bet the incentives, every time.
“native americans, generally, were ghettoized even before any “up” could be obtained.”
From the beginning, what happened in the case of red-vs-white was white supremacy outmaneuvered red savagery. Not that the whites lacked savagery, they just had more cunning finesse than the red man in matters of private property, treaty and religion. Military technology combined with superior organizational skills (advanced collectivism) defeated the inferior culture of common red-tribalism. The tribal enemy was then exterminated or contained on the reservations by the whites, given copious amounts of welfare and taught to stay in their place.
The black race, too, was dominated by the superior white culture ( I use the word superior loosely) until the blacks had had enough of it. It all came to a head in 1963 as documented in the vid that I posted.
At the end of the video, James Baldwin posited a rhetorical question which is also relevant in our time: “The white man has to ask himself why he needed to invent the nigger.”
Currently, the black man also bears the responsibility of why his race is full of neo-niggers of a different sort; just as the white man needs to ask himself why his race has become full of ignorant, welfare-loving white-trash. The excuse for the black man nor the white man nor any man of any color cannot be totally the same as it was in 1963.
In 2012, mankind is still herded, schooled, flocked and collectivized into various groups. Today, race is a less effective means to collectivize and pit one group against another; however, the tribal drums still beckon; and the desire to collectivise into groups which deny and even exploit other groups of a different color still remains. There are highly intelligent people who still rationalize that “natural law” allows a white man to deny a paying customer who happens to be a black man, yes, to actually deny said black man a hospital bed, food, water, a hotel room, a plane ticket, a bus ride or any other good or service all on the basis of “natural law.”
Well, let me tell you brother, that’s not my kind of natural law. I can not only reason out natural, in this case, I can also feel it in my gut. And for anybody to sit there in 2012 and suggest that natural law permits such racist, human actions is testimony that mankind still has a long journey ahead of it. Written, unwritten, poetic, natural and artificial law such as written by the state recognizes racism for what it is when it’s turned into a physical action: A crime.
And yes, if some racist goes so far as to deny a person medical care on the sole basis of the patients skin color, and as a result of that action a death occurs, then that racist is charged with murder and goes to jail where he gets vaccinated.
The state and its minions are immoral and have no conscience. I’d rather take my chances with the people.
I wish there were a way to edit these posts -
the crime, if any, would be the death resulting from the denial of medical care… “why” is not the crime.
Of course, the theory of property ownership as it relates to natural law was/is a stumbling block to many. Whites along with other races used to think people were property—some still do. That view was/is clearly wrong. Some individuals still hold the mistaken believe that owning a business entitles them to some kind of super supremacy that surpasses and immunizes them from everything else, i.e. “It’s my property, so I’ll do as I damn well please.”
But really, what is property and the “rights” which come with it? There are numerous theories on the subject. An it just so happens that today Alex Jones’ site has posted a timely, thought provoking article on this subject—imagine that.
Private Property vs. ‘Your Stuff’
http://www.infowars.com/private-property-vs-your-stuff/
property’s not a theory, nor does it “relate” to natlaw – it is the crux of natlaw.
“some still do”. yes. you, for example.
no wonder you favor the above article (and ignore the intellectual & character giants, like locke & rothbard). “property is the stuff you can prevent others from taking from you.” that’s the author’s conclusion. and yours.
fiat ‘legal tender’, you fulminate, is very bad. but fiat associations, those are good. free markets are good, but property is incidental, just stuff you manage to keep predators from stealing. liberty is good, but forceful integration of people is better. etc.
your gut? agreed. your enteric brain is in charge. emotional (eating) > habituated > morbid obesity. emotional (thinking) > habituated > morbid obtusity….diet to begin ‘tomorrow…someday…when “they” are ready for it…’. forget about “them”; you’re not ready for it.
don’t know what you’ve experienced, but it’s clear you have not figured it out, gotten past it. and that it deeply motivates you toward intervention, your own world-improving, crusading, empire building. and that wrecks all your other positions that you’ve espoused here. you’re no libertarian minarchist (& definitely not anarchist); you’re only another who dreams of wielding the gov powertool to your own ends.
i’m experienced, too (racial nonsense). but it wasn’t my gut that solved the problem. your gut won’t solve it, either (because that’s not what guts are for).
“property’s not a theory, nor does it “relate” to natlaw – it is the crux of natlaw.”
Here we go…..again.
Natural Law is of and by itself a theory. The authority from which Natural Law comes from is also a theory. Traditionally, it has been written that Aristotle is the “father” of conceptual “natural law” (lower case) Both Socrates and Plato are credited with disambiguating the concept. Of course, natural law can be traced back even further than the Greeks.
Some claim the source of Natural Law (upper case) is God. They claim God has made all laws both discovered and undiscovered. Most individuals who subscribe to the theory that God is the source also believe that he is the ultimate owner of everything seen and unseen. God is the decider, owner and grand master, they say.
Some insist that natural law’s source is the authority which rests inside each sovereign individual’s ability to make his own personal decisions by virtue of free will; however, the “law” carries with it this caveat; No violence or harm can be done to another human being. In other words, “do whatever the hell you want so long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else.”
Others think that natural law evolves and changes over time. And still others simply think that natural law to be synonymous with The Law of The Jungle.
My point is simply this:
Since natural law/ Natural Law is still as yet just a theory of which agnostics like myself are not so fully sure of the sourcing or predication of said law, then why should I be so foolish as to believe that “private property”—- which is supposedly defined by N(natural) L(law)—- is not a theory? In other words, if your so called “crux” is a theory, then so is that which is nested inside.
There is one thing, however, of which I’m certain: And that is God may or may exist and He may not be the owner of all property—including souls—but you, my friend, are not God— not even close; Therefore, like me, you can only perceive what is “self-evident natural-law.”
And how I perceive it is thus: If you think that owning a business entitles you to, for example, kill a wandering little black-girl who decides to pick a flower without permission on your private property (like in the link to the article which I posted) then you don’t understand natural law at all. “Private property” does not trump the concept of proportionality. Private property doesn’t mean you or I own our own little dictatorship where we can decide who lives and who dies. Owning a private business doesn’t mean you have carte blanche. Actions have consequences, and if you don’t respect other races and treat people with dignity then there is going to be trouble. And I don’t want trouble, because, for one thing, it’s bad for business, viz. free market business as apposed to racially-controlled, market business.
As far as I know, natural law is not incompatible with / does not preclude the concept of reasonable force. Is it unreasonable to shoot a little girl for picking flowers? Yes.
But little girls (and boys) do need to learn to respect other people’s property, including their flowers.
Let me try this again…
As far as I know, natural law is not incompatible with / does not preclude the concept of reasonable force. Is it unreasonable to shoot a little girl for picking flowers? Yes. And one should expect consequences were one to do so.
But even little girls (and boys) need to respect other people’s property, including their flowers.
a property “agnostic” fulminating on the fed, free markets, the foundlings plagiarization of the lockean distillation of natlaw…is absurd.
My response to the author is this: What if you (broadly speaking) make a painting, and it gets stolen and sold to a pawn shop, which sells it to a customer who gives it to his wife for their anniversary and she wills it to her niece… is it still your painting? What if your grandma’s wedding ring gets stolen? What about your dog? Difficulty of recovery doesn’t negate your ownership. Should you one day discover the whereabouts of your painting, your grandma’s ring or your dog you have the right to reclaim it. If you receive stolen stuff, although it may be in your possession, it’s not yours.
Private property is one of the fundamental laws, and respect for it is one of the first things a parent teaches their child – “don’t touch, honey” – either because it’s not yours and doesn’t belong to you, or because it’s hazardous, sticky, dirty, etc. If it’s not yours, you either “look, but don’t touch” or you need to ask permission of the owner who has the right to refuse, no matter how unjust-seeming. How you decide to respond at this point is up to you.
Each of us is responsible for making our own decisions, weighing our own actions, and considering as well as accepting the possible consequences thereof. No one can do that for another, nor force it upon them.
those parliamentary asseverates of monopoly of force opine that there is a statute of limitations. but that applies only to their legal proceedings.
in the real, natlaw, world, the limit is property owner’s lifespan, at the least; heirs, sometimes, too.
crooks surely appreciate the author’s perspective, and would be wise to concentrate their efforts on such comme ci, comme ca types (fewer repercussions).
welcome to the fray / frayed / ‘fraid conservative quilting bee, girl……
Conundrum 101
Subject: Private property rights
Teal man owns Asundries and Widgets. GrayMan enters and asks why so many customers are Plaids.
Says TealMan: It has always been thus and they have been my faithful customers.
GaryMan: But I saw you refuse service to PolkaDot Man. Why lose his business?
TealMan: The Plaids don’t much care for PolkaDots so I would lose commerce if I served them.
Gray: But what of fairness and decency? PolkaDots need your goods, to.
Teal: Exactly. These are MY goods.
Gray: But couldn’t you cater to the Dots?
Teal: They would make up less than 10% of my customers. I would lose untold Plaids, and thus a great deal of my income. Personally, I’m not opposed to serving the Dots. It’s just business.
Gray: It seems so unfair and discriminatory.
Teal: Agreed. But how else do I stay in commerce without disaffecting my base?
Gray: Could you not make a plea to the Plaids to be more tolerant?
Teal: Sure, but in the meantime, it’s still MY business is it not?
Tragic, but the mindset is widespread. What’s yours should also be mine. And if I can’t force it from you I know someone who can.
Seems to go back to our tribal needs and affiliations. We can’t force our tolerant tendencies on even our friends and family. More evidence of the need for Judeo-Christian values to be practiced and promulgated.
dawg em…
market segmentation neither comedy, nor tragedy. It’s just a bit of arithmetic, and a bit of marketing.
‘all things to all people’, (or even some things to all people, can be), in biz, as in life, is a recipe for failure, tho…and a “you will be” prefix and a “or else” suffix just locks in the metastasizing blow-back.
as for deity jaycees, the “revealers” are authoritarian cartels, and positivist (which is to say, relativist). reason is absent, and so law (principles) are absent – and un-discoverable, to boot.
hmmmm…virgin births and born again / re-virgin-ized females (males too? why not?)…gets a thought going about veal…and veal cages…and re-vealing the fatted calves…..
so it’s unclear. are you dawg em’ing the authoritarians who re-veal private business/property owners, or are you dawgmatis em’ing for a veal cutlet supper?
The state protects against racism… would this be the same state that conducts racial profiling? Or is there another state I don’t know about?
[...] Will the Race Hustlers Prevail? [...]
I am beginning to think that this man Obama will win in November. Lucky to be Down Under on a temporary basis but may turn more permanent. Not sure if I can swing it, but it is tempting. This country has socialist tendencies but life itself seems at the moment less full of hate and discord, vis a vis the U.S. Thank you for bringing it up in your book long ago, How to Prepare . . . I am not surprised by any of what is happening and your work paved the way for my understanding so long ago. Let us hope and pray for the best.
Would love a column or more ideas from you as to where in the U.S. might be best at this point in time to ride out what is likely coming.
Cheers!
Seems like thoughts are wandering all over the place!
Back to ‘race’. I was reared to believe all people are of the human race. Judge people by the their character, not their skin color. Had friends of all colors in high school & college out West.
Fast forward to South Carolina. I expected to encounter extreme white racists. Poor down-trodden blacks. Almost opposite… PC demands white people cannot criticize blacks in any way, even get verbally attacked for inadvertent remarks (One of my friends got yelled at for referring to a black woman as a ‘gal’….common enough in the West to call any woman a ‘gal’…)
Upon attending a redistricting meeting, we heard some black people claim that ONLY black politicians could represent them!!
Whoa! And speak as if there were still “White only” signs around. And say: There’s not enough black politicians! Or Democrats! (Whose fault is that?) And, “Why are our brown brothers (Hispanics) prevented from voting!? Ummm, maybe because they are required to be an AMERICAN citizen! I have no doubt that all Hispanics who were American citizens were allowed to vote. They were talking about illegal aliens…blew me away! A sad state of affairs. These people are keeping their own people poor and ignorant for political purposes….it surely seems. So, we have a partly black President, Oprah Winfrey is the richest woman in America, many pro-sports players are black and wealthy, Cain was running for office…oppression? Who? Where?