The question, " has America embraced socialism ", can best be answered by looking at recent social trends, i.e. elections and the growth of federal programs.
There is a great deal of information that can be acquired online and in print that can explain the so-called pros and cons of socialism and its history. I'm not interested in rehashing all of that data. My intent is to review how the acceptability of socialism has steadily grown within the borders of the largest capitalist market in the world and what it means to the future of America.
So, when did this trend first begin? That's debatable depending on who you listen to. The fact of the matter is that socialism in America has never had this much momentum in its entire history. The real question is, why has America embraced socialism to the degree that it has?
In my opinion, I have concluded that many Americans, particularly those in the age group 18-29 and 30-44, are willing to trade their liberty for security.
It appears that more and more of this social group in the collegiate world are not dreaming of the next big IDEA or invention that will transform the world. It may be that we have seen the last of the Dells, Gates and Jobs. If there be any that arise they will soon succumb to the call of the socialists around them.
It appears that America has embraced socialism on the false premise that one can have liberty and security at the same time. Unfortunately, in the world of Millennials, anyone that desires or promotes personal liberty is a threat. Just take a look at today's college campus' and see for yourself what has happened to those with a different viewpoint.
This particular age group has been educated to believe what previous generations would never agree to because the lives and posterity of that previous generation were not dependent on a socialist mindset. What they acquired was done so by daring to dream, sheer determination and self-sacrifice when needed. The idea of obligating someone else to contribute to one's own success and prosperity was never considered.
One thing I've noticed is that socialists like Obama, Sanders and Hillary always target the young, poor and otherwise vulnerable members of our society. When a party is unable to provide sound leadership the populace tends towards whoever will offer the most "goodies" because that is the option they are left with. You'll notice that this is a far cry from the call that was put forth by President John F. Kennedy... "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".
Is it fair to say that this "selfless" mindset has been replaced with a "helpless" mindset? To figure this out let's start by examining what is happening with the upcoming 2016 Presidential elections.
An Iowa caucus entrance poll found that Sanders received an overwhelming 84 percent of the vote from the Millennial generation. The Bernie Sanders campaign is running on the platform that he is the only one providing the opportunity to build a new party of the "99%".
This campaign, as well as Hillary's represents a turning point in our society as they each are promising to address the struggles of the working class, the middle class, minorities, and young people. These candidates are each trying to sell the argument that each of these groups has been exploited by capitalism.
With the promise of reprise and justice for past abuses socialists are now creating an even greater polarization within American society. In addition there is an environment in the public school system proving that the answer to the question, has America embraced socialism, is a resounding YES!
To enhance the grab for power at the federal level the textbook play that is used over and over again is the issue of income disparity. The reason this argument is used is because socialists realize that the masses do not understand how a world economy that benefits all groups actually works.
The old saying, "the rich keep getting richer" is a constant drum beat that is played loudly in the ears of the middle and lower class. Why has this been so effective? Quite simply, a lack of sound logic by the population at large.
Many of the wealthy that we are familiar with actually benefited from from the doctrine that "necessity is the mother of invention". Most recently I've seen the likes of Angie Hicks, founder of Angie's List and Sheila Marcelo, founder of Care.com reach new heights.
These two entrepreneurs have gone from middle class to wealthy because they had an idea for a service that met the needs of society. They did not cheat anyone or take advantage of members of the lower or middle class to achieve their success. Neither did they require the federal government to transfer wealth from those that were already successful to facilitate their success.
Please take note that both entrepreneurs are women. So, this 'war on women" needs to be looked at with both eyes wide open and your mind actually turned on. Sound logic would tell you that one of the reasons they succeeded was due to the capitalist system that they are a part of. A system that all of us can take advantage of to change our lives for the better as well as our society. No socialist system has ever fostered the generation of ideas and solutions that changed an entire country, let alone the entire world, i.e. Google, like Capitalism has.
Socialists point to the growing disparity in come between the "haves" and the "have not's" and blame the Capitalist system for this. Yet they fail to explain how it was that the rich actually acquired their success.
Wait a minute... they actually did. President Obama made it clear while campaigning by telling successful business owners "you didn't build that". He explained that if it wasn't for roads built by the federal government the goods business owners sell would never make it to the marketplace.
I guess for some of us educated in the public school system this is "perfectly sound logic ".
Very little fanfare is made of the success of these two women that I've mentioned. Why? Because no worthwhile socialist would touch either of these success stories with a ten foot pole. Instead they will point out to you that too many are suffering and unable to support themselves because businesses don't pay a decent wage.
Their most recent solution is to strong arm small businesses into paying a minimum wage of $15 per hour. Never mind if businesses can't afford to pay more. Better yet, "why all the fuss, of course they can afford it ". They believe that all business owners make a lot of money and government must force them to pay out more to their employees because its the right thing to do.
In 2015 one business executive Dan Price of Gravity Payments, a Seattle based payment processing company, actually fell for the guilt trip and slashed his own salary and then payed all his employees at least $70000 annually.
There was dancing in the street by a vast swatch of socialists when this took place as they took this opportunity to tell everyone that this proved their hunch about small businesses was right after all.
Unfortunately, no one made a big deal when the employees of this firm started to complain because they felt it wasn't fair that such a huge pay increase was given to co-workers who weren't necessarily contributing as much to the company's success while their salaries remained the same.
That's a fair assessment considering that most good employees who are paid well believe they are paid more than their co-workers because they are better educated, more talented and contribute more as a result of superior skills and greater productivity. Not simply because of seniority or a sudden pay increase.
I'm all for everyone earning a great income. However, I believe this experiment by Dan Price can be misinterpreted by socialists and will be used to support their claims that this model should be followed by all businesses and that government should somehow intervene and possibly audit businesses who they feel are not paying their employees what is believed to be a "decent" salary. Let's not forget that someone needs to determine how much is "fair". Chances are the government will want to control that as well.
Without realizing it we would be socializing the free marketplace and as a result it would no longer be "free" and unencumbered. As is human nature, if most people believe there is more money to be had without having to earn it, they will want to go after it by using the government's reach to get it for them.
First, for those of you who were subjected to the doctrines of our public school system (I'm so sorry), let's first define "conundrum" before going on -
a confusing and difficult problem or question "one of the most difficult conundrums for the experts" synonyms: problem, difficult question, difficulty, quandry, dilemna.
These conundrums pretty much paint the full landscape of socialists thinking in America and confirms the belief that now more so than ever before we are a society that has answered yes to the question, " has America embraced socialism ?".
To those who have full-heartedly answered "YES" I'd like to address each conundrum and hopefully leave you with some food for thought.
1. America is capitalist and greedy - in my opinion, the capitalist system is primarily about choices and options, which in other systems are not available. Whenever a society is given an endless amount of choices and options you are giving them a double-edged sword. Used properly and with sound morals than s/he will most often make choices that will be personally as well as socially beneficial.
It's the other side of the sword that society needs to be prepared to deal with. Our ability to choose our destiny is a God-given right that no man or government should be able to take away. If Socialist want to take away the right of individuals to make those choices in a free marketplace so as to avoid the "greed" that they disdain so much, than why aren't they also willing to take away the "right to choose" with regard to women and their unborn child? If the consequences of a woman's right to choose are deemed acceptable by some than the collateral damage of "greed" caused by some that occurs in a capitalist system should also be permitted.
Let's also not forget than within the capitalist system we have a financial base that is able to subsidize up to half the population. No socialist seems to think that this is unfair or are willing to give thanks to those "greedy capitalists" for their ability to generate income that can be taxed by a socialist government to support those who aren't willing or are unable have all their basic needs met.
The Rich Should Pay More in Taxes
By the way, why are successful capitalists considered "greedy" when these 1% of the population make it possible for all the social benefits to be enjoyed by the remaining 99% ? If they weren't so rich where would the tax revenue come from to pay for all these social benefits that everyone wants, like free education and healthcare?
According to a CNBC article published in 2015, the top 1% of wage-earners paid nearly half of all income taxes, 45.7 to be exact, in 2014. Another report published by the Tax Foundation in 2014 revealed that the top 1% paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90%. It also mentioned that as a result of the Bush Tax cut in 2003, cuts which liberals then claimed were meant to benefit only the rich, the tax burden for the top 1% actually increased significantly and by 2011 they were still paying more than they were in 2002. During this same period the bottom 90% ending up paying less in taxes.
The Rich Have are Selfish and want to Hoard Their Wealth
One last thing I want to address with regard to the claim that capitalists are "greedy". Lets take a look at the amount of charitable giving that is done in this country. If they truly are greedy than how do you account for the figures provided by the Washington Examiner. According to their report, the wealthiest (greedy) 1.4% of Americans are responsible for 86% of the charitable donations made at death. Which means that the remaining 98.6% of Americans accounted for only 14% of the charitable donations.
Folks, this is how half the American population is subsidized. Are you still wondering, has America embraced socialism?
2. Half the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims - I had to think long and hard about this conundrum. Here is my conclusion - this victim mentality is a direct result of envy. I have heard the argument that these people are truly victims of the system and actually don't want to live on government subsidies.
Really? Where were you the night that Obama was elected president? Have you not seen that infamous video of the African-American woman who was filled with glee because now Obama was going to pay for her mortgage. What about all the Obama Phones that have been made available?
Socialists claim that these people live in fear, pain and misery. Also, it's extremely stressful and humiliating to live on government aid. I don't doubt that is the case for many of them. "They are victims of a system that doesn't work" is the constant song and dance that we hear playing. I still am not convinced that any of them are victims of the capitalist system.
If the system doesn't work than why do so many of the poor and middle class clamor for free education? What would be the point if "the system" doesn't work? They'd be wasting their time living in such a system despite a higher education wouldn't they?
Why are they wanting to pursue a higher education, at tax payers expense, only to participate in a system that they claim only victimizes them? By the way, how does the system know who is poor and how is not, or how is white and who is not?
If the system didn't work than why has the U.S. been the most prosperous nation in the world for the past 100 years? Why have so many millionaires come out of this system that doesn't work?
Why is China, who has now implemented various aspects of Capitalism, producing so many millionaires and billionaires?
In my opinion, Capitalism does not in itself victimize people. Rather it gives people a chance to free themselves from poverty and obscurity.
3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government. This one is really puzzling to me. Once Obama won the Presidential election in 2008 the socialist Democratic party had control of the White House and the Senate. The were in total control to pass whatever legislation they wanted to benefit the poor and middle class.
I've heard the argument that the Republicans resisted Obama's initiative at every turn. Yes, they did resist him but with little impact because he still got pretty much everything he wanted. After all, the Democrats had enough votes to get whatever legislation passed that they wanted. With all this in their favor their constituents still didn't get everything they felt they needed. However, Obamacare serves as the poster child for the degree of influence and success the socialists agenda achieved.
Recent statistics reveal that more and more insurance companies are dropping out of the federal exchanges because they are unable to operate profitably. All the promises that were made about Obamacare led us to believe that this was a win-win situation for everyone involved; no one would get turned down, you can keep your doctor, rates would go down, subsidies would be available to low income families and insurance carriers were guaranteed to not lose money.
Wow! Talk about a socialist nirvana. This was a prime example of has america embraced socialism. Where are all the victims?
Hang in there with me because we have three more conundrums that address the issue of has American embraced socialism.
4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer. How is it when the Republicans are in office the rich supposedly get richer but when the Socialist Democrats control the government the poor don't come out of poverty? Their cry of victimization somehow continues to this day. I believe that poverty will never be wiped out by the efforts of government.
This is a real dilemma that doesn't get addressed correctly regardless of which party controls the government. In order to do so one must address poverty at the root . Let's not pluck it out of the landscape by always blaming the "other guy" or just rotten luck or lack of opportunity.
Having said that, here are my observations. The poor will stay poor in many instances because, unlike the successful and rich, they don't think positive or big enough for long enough. I have found that rich people not only think big but also do whatever it takes to achieve that "BIG" thing that they have on their mind. They don't give up easily. I know for a fact that Colonel Sanders went bankrupt several times before he made it big with his Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets.
You can search the internet and will find plenty of stories of individuals who were destitute and yet never stopped thinking big and kept chasing their dream until they finally realized it. Athletes from the inner city are a great example.
To get to the professional level is an extremely difficult achievement. Your race or economic background is not what keeps you from making it to the big leagues but rather competition and lack of motivation and discipline. These athletes did what most others weren't willing to do. Those that don't make it never turn to their Senator or Congressman and ask them to make things "more fair" so they can get a crack at playing in the major leagues. They know it's all about personal talent, skill and hard work.
Unfortunately, too many who are poor will stay poor because they aren't willing to dream big and make the necessary sacrifice to realize their BIG dream. If they encounter any difficulty along the way they complain or accuse someone of being prejudiced and then get lazy about pursuing their dream. Their failure is then laid at someone else's feet rather than taking responsibility for it themselves. These are the folks that the socialists will try to appeal to and convince that only the government can "right" their supposed wrong.
Is it also possible that many of the poor aren't willing to sacrifice, work hard, be patient, and even suffer at times? Could it be that many are too busy looking for instant success, instant money. Maybe they have just given up and lost hope because their parents convinced them that it was impossible to change their fate. I don't mean to sound indifferent to the cause of many who have lived in poverty for generations but somewhere personal responsibility must come into play.
What I'm trying to point out is simply that the easiest path to getting out of poverty is to be determined that the cycle can end. The end of the cycle begins with you. What a person has to do is first change their thinking. The Bible teaches us that "as a man thinks, so is he". Your actions will follow your speech and thoughts. Just examine the life of Muhammad Ali - "I am the greatest". That guy did more positive bragging on himself than a any man had a right to.
If you want to be successful begin to see yourself successful and start talking and thinking that way rather than expecting the government to make it happen. That's giving them too much power over your life. If you give them that power you'll just be another person who answers YES to the question, has America embraced poverty.
5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things people in other countries only dream about. The greatest benefit the poor in America have that most around the world don't have is the freedom to choose.
They have to right to Social Security benefits, the right to medical care, the right to welfare to feed their families, to actually have as many children as they want even if they can't provide for them. The poor in this country should try living in another country, like China, which forbids couples from more than one child, before they complain about their condition.
The poor in America have access to public education and except for extremely rare cases are able to access the educational system. They should try living in India and sample their education system.
Let's not forget the America Dream. Yes, the one thing that so many around the world for so many generation have heard about and envied. This too the poor in America still have while others around the world wouldn't dare to even consider. Politicians talk about the American Dream only during election time because they know that this is truly what we all want and they use it as a carrot to entice the public into believing once again that only a socialist government can make it happen for them.
If you were to travel the country and ask people you run into about the American Dream you would discover that it is alive and well among the very young. Yes, the children. Their minds have not yet been polluted by their parents or the school system and thus they believe that one day they can acquire fame and fortune via the NFL, NBA or the entertainment industry. It is the older generation that has given up. However, it was their choice to give up on the dream and have resorted to bitterness and blame for their state on someone else.
But why is it that so many people no longer talk about the American Dream. Probably because so many of them have not seen their wealth increase for decades now and are too busy busting their rear ends to make ends meet. Is their condition the fault of greedy capitalists? If so, is the overhaul of the system with a socialist system the answer?
Again, one must ask, has America embraced socialism? Why do so many Americans want to embrace socialism while so many immigrants want to escape their homeland to get into this country in order to achieve the American dream?
A report that was recently published by The Atlantic indicates that these frustrated, hard working Americans hinted at whom might be to blame for the economic woes. They made reference to a "vague other". When all the possibilities were considered the only reference to "other" that was specified pointed to immigrants. Not the so-called "greedy capitalist".
What they see first hand is that the quality of jobs and the opportunity for better paying jobs has diminished as a result of the uninhibited influx of immigrants. However, here's what they don't realize. They don't know what is in the hearts of these natives. Here are a few comments recorded from interviews conducted for this article published in The Atlantic...
“To make money, raise a family, and to be safe. I was born a mile from here in Juarez. I don’t want my child to face what I had to face. I want the best for him and my wife.” — Cesar, El Paso, Texas
“To live a successful life on your terms, to be accepted by others on your terms, and to accept others on their terms.” — Jose Villa, La Villita, New Mexico
“Freedom, safety, and a good job. I have them now. Those on the other side of the fence in my backyard, living in Mexico, don’t have that. They climb into my yard and I find them hiding under my truck. They want what we have and we should be proud others want it.” —Blanca, Socorro, Texas
6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries. You have the likes of Bernie Sanders touting the benefits of a more socialist system in order to bring about a better life for a larger swath of the American population.
And yet, if you like at the other countries who are run on the premise of what he is promoting, i.e. Korea, China, Cuba, you have to wonder about the sanity of so many Americans who are swelling with pride and joy over the possibility of this man being President.
“To be able to own the things you need or want. My relatives in Mexico don’t have that. They are struggling with money and worried about safety. Here in the U.S., if you work hard enough, you can get what you need.” —Alex, Denver. Colorado
People from all parts of the world are still swarming here by the hundreds of thousands each year wanting a better life. If not for the Capitalist system that our country operates on what would be the reason for so many hard working people to come? What would create the high paying jobs or the better schools?
There is only one thing that would attract people to this country if Capitalism were deposed - the freebies of Socialism.
So, that leads us to the next question - what is the goal of Socialism when we can look it's history in other countries and see that it has failed to come close to accomplishing what Capitalism has for mankind?
I will attempt to answer this question by asking my first question over and over from this point forward -
Has America Embraced Socialism? Well, there are two countries that are often cited as models to learn from, Scandinavia and Sweden. However, politicians and American Socialist fail to list all the facts.
First, Scandinavia wasn't always cited as a socialist benchmark. Years ago Scandinavia was first of all a free-market success story. It indeed started out as a poor country and the reason they were propelled to success was not because of socialism but rather because in the late 19th century they began their success under a dynamic capitalist system that lasted well into the 20th century. This boom from poverty into prosperity coincided when its tax rates were lower than the U.S. as well as Europe.
Has America Embraced Socialism? What about Sweden? Well, lets consider IKEA stores. It's founder, Ingvar Kamprad, left his country in 1973. Why? The tax rate had in many instances exceeded 100 percent. Just goes to show you that taxing the rich even more isn't the answer to the economic woes of America.
History shows us that the Swedish government had concocted a plan to confiscate corporate profits and hand them over to the labor unions. Does any of this sound familiar my fellow Americans? This delivered predictable results. Why would it be any different in America?
Has America Embraced Socialism?
That's not an easy question to answer. After all many of the current Socialist societies show no inkling that they are bent towards this end goal. So a blanket statement that Communism is the obvious end game would be unfair. I believe that the end game is dependent upon who is in charge of the implementation of the Socialist government.
Has America Embraced Socialism?
First of all socialism can be thought of in two terms; as a range of ideologies and then, as a stage of society. Lenin once said,
What he meant was that eventually as a result of various factors such as the ending of scarcity, socialism would create the material conditions necessary for communism to come about.
It has been taught that in "Marxist thought" society is believed to move in stages of development. The example that has been given with this argument is that Feudalism creates wealth and when technology is developed and implemented the two combine to create the material conditions necessary for Capitalism to arise. Then Capitalism allows for the next stage to develop which is Socialism.
What Lenin was implying is that a socialist society will eventually pave the way for a Communist society. So, to answer the question, I believe that Socialism in America could lead to Communism. The takeover of the healthcare market by the Obama doctrine is the best example I can offer up.
Does every socialist like Bernie Sanders have communism as the end goal? I can't say for certain. But, after seeing what Obama has accomplished, I'd rather not give Bernie or Hillary the opportunity to see how far they can push our current system.
That still leaves us with the unaswered question - has America embraced socialism ?
Sounds like a question totally out of left field doesn't it. Well, I think it's worth considering since many Americans like myself profess that America is indeed a Christian nation, regardless of what President Obama says.
So, is Socialism mentioned in the Bible?
I've discovered that socialists point to several scriptures to support their claim.
“He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none …” (Luke 3:11)
As well as 1 John 3:17 says, “But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?”
If you take these verses at face value without studying the context in which they were preached than you might be able to convince enough people. However, what these verses really show is that the Bible advocates generosity. Whereas socialism promotes justice by expecting the government to forcibly take a "fair" amount of wealth from the rich to redistribute to those that are not.
What socialists fail to understand is that has created laws that govern human action.and work automatically like many of the laws of the universe such as the laws of physics. One such law or principle is that there are blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. God is not forcing any of us to obey his laws. He has given us a free will. Blessings are a natural result of obeying his laws.
Generosity and sharing with those in need are indeed biblical commands. However, under God's system of laws it is up to the giver to decide to give and how much to give and in many cases if they give at all. God allows free choice, it is how he has decided to operate his kingdom. There are laws but it is up to us to obey those laws out of love and reverence for him. He could have made us robots but he didn't.
Another commonly cited biblical reference to prove that socialism is biblical is found in Acts 2:44-45, "The believers all kept together; they shared all they had with one another, they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds among all, as anyone might be in need” (Moffatt translation). To best understand this passage we need to read it in light of what was happening at the time.
The scene at the time involved the annual festival of Pentecost which resulted in Jews from all over the world converging onto Jerusalem. Keep in mind that the Holy Spirit had been given to the disciples and many were converted and thus the early Christian church began. Many who had come to Jerusalem stayed longer than they had planned and had run short of money and food. As a result they formed a quasi-community to meet the needs of the people.
This was in every way a temporary situation because of the unexpected conditions. These people were not socialists or communists. They were generous, even to the point of selling their possessions in order to meet the needs of their Christian brothers and sisters. These generous people who stepped in to fill the need at the time were wealthy property owners. They did not sell everything they had but only what was needed at the time in order to meet the needs of those who were in need.
The Fenton translation says, “[N]o one who possessed property claimed it as exclusively his own: but it was for the use of all. … For some who were possessors of lands and houses sold them; and bringing the price of the sales, and presenting the same at the feet of the apostles, a distribution was made to each according to his need” (Acts 4:32, 35).
Notice it does not say that all sold their property. Only some of the property owners sold their possessions and it was voluntary. They were not forced, coerced or compelled to do so.
Gods Welfare System
One other argument often used to promote the idea that the bible advocates socialism is the act of tithing. From what I have discovered in the Old Testament there were three types of tithes in ancient Israel The first was ten percent of a persons increase and was paid to God for the priests and Levites. The second tithe was actually supposed to be saved and kept by the individuals so they would have it available for the Feasts of Tabernacles. And finally, the third tithe which was meant to serve an important role as a welfare program.
God's welfare program is very different from socialist welfare programs.
With regard to the first tithe, ten percent, it was an amount that could not be changed and was paid by everyone. Regardless of your income this amount did not change and was not subject to the whims of the government.
Another important aspect of the tithe was what it was spent on. “At the end of every third year you shall bring out the tithe of your produce of that year and store it up within your gates. And the Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you, and the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are within your gates, may come and eat and be satisfied …” (Deuteronomy 14:28‑29; New King James Version).
Please notice that this tithe was NOT for the poor. It was designated for specific individuals who could not provide for themselves because of specific circumstances. This third tithe was for the Levites because they did not own any land which could provide food for them to live on, for foreigners who needed temporary help, for the fatherless who were too young to work or didn't have family to support them and for widows were unable to work and didn't have family to lean on.
Able-bodied men and women were not to supported by the tithe. God's welfare for them.
On the surface God's welfare system seems to be better for society than what we currently have in place. So why are so many people not happy with our current system? Why do so many claim that our system is broken?
I believe that I've illustrated that God does not condone socialism. Neither is he in favor of the crony capitalism that is seen rampant in our society. Actually, his word says that he is against it.
1 Timothy 5:18 it says, “The labourer is worthy of his reward.” Labor unions have worked diligently over time to improve working conditions for workers in various industries. However, they now seem more interested in serving the needs of their leaders and politicians. Let's not forget that unions were birthed out of a situation where employers were imposing extremely poor working conditions.
If you look at the American landscape today we can all agree that there are too many incidents of greed, lust for power, and greedy men looking to get the hands on the controls of government and industry. These greedy business men actually want the government involved extensively in the economy to write into laws advantages for them so they can further increase their wealth. If you look closely you see that theft, immorality and dishonesty are running unrestrained in almost every high place in society.
Is it no wonder that so many in America are looking for a better way? But as we look for a better system we make one critical error which leaves us in worse shape than when we first began looking. People overlook the fact that human nature is evil. No matter what system is in place there will always be large portions of society that will be sorely disappointed.
Moral failure in society will always lead to economic failure. Only by turning to the God of the bible and adapting his system and obeying his laws will people begin to truly prosper again.
Do you have a great story about this? Share it!
Click below to see contributions from other visitors to this page...
USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Trump is 'unfit for the presidency'
In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major …
Capitalist Success not Wanted in Seattle by Blacks and Browns Not rated yet
An unconventional protest by two artists is singling out businesses they say are destroying communities in a historically African American part of the …
Mar 08, 17 05:42 PM
U.S. companies added a whopping 298,000 new jobs in February, beating economists’ expectations by more than 100,000. The report from ADP, a global human resources and payroll firm, provides the first…
Mar 08, 17 05:25 PM
WND’s CEO, Joseph Farah, whose new book “The Restitution of All Things: Israel, Christians and the End of the Age” looks at the ultimate restoration of planet earth, last month asked if Trump’s electi…
Mar 08, 17 04:42 PM
U.S. President Donald Trump met with business leaders on Wednesday including Tesla Inc Chief Executive Elon Musk and real estate developers, as the administration seeks partnerships with the private s…
Mar 03, 17 05:49 PM
Paper money is going the way of the dinosaur—extinct. Soon you will be unable to use the paper bills stuffed under your mattress or in your wallet. New technology means that the currencies of the futu…
Mar 03, 17 05:47 PM
The White House has looked into the use of military force to thwart North Korea’s advancing nuclear and missile programs, according to a U.S. media outlet, thrusting a largely taboo policy option to t…
AmericaExtinct is a labor of love. It takes hours each week to research, accumulate and present what you see here. If you visit often and enjoy the content than that is the greatest compliment you can pay.
Would you consider joining this worthy cause as a sponsor with either a recurring monthly donation of your choosing or a one-time donation to offset the monthly cost of maintaining this site?
We appreciate your patronage and support
This short video (that will not be online for much longer) will reveal some simple electricity reducing tips. This is honest information tested by thousands the world over!
Watch this video until the end as it has a surprising twist!
DIABETES DESTROYER - THIS IS AN INNOVATION AND STEP BY STEP ALL-NATURAL DIABETES SOLUTION THAT WILL SHOW YOU HOW TO START REVERSING TYPE 2 DIABETES AND PRE-DIABETES IN A LITTLE AS ONE WEEK - CLICK HERE
Still Addicted? 95 percent of recovery programs in the U. S. are not based on solid research and evidence. While many “lesser-known” techniques produce ASTOUNDING results. There are proven ways to dramatically decrease cravings, urges, intrusive thoughts and withdrawal symptoms. Make sure you watch the whole video as the end will surprise you.