So, if the average person has to choose between these two scenarios:

1. "By blackening the skies with crisscrossing dollars," Voegeli says, the welfare state encourages people "to believe an impossibility: that every household can be a net importer of the wealth redistributed by the government." -or-

2. Become and entrepreneur; and your future will be what you MAKE IT.

It may seem that the Big Government leaders AND the Big Business leaders push an unlikely path to success for the individual. So, the question of which philosophy we should support.......might be better considered by looking at which group IS a success? Is Big Government successful? Not if you understand the term "UN-sustainable" in combination with the fact that this Obama administration is rapidly accelerating the spending and debt and "gifts" to people he hopes will vote for him......

A very simple and effective outline of the difference between what our Founders constituted and what the "progressives" mean by "transformation".

One need only ask how long can a welfare state support it's citizens when more of them become completely dependent upon the state?

The answers to that question ought to be alarming because they are obvious.

First, the number of people born must be limited.

Secondly, those who are living must learn to "sacrifice" more for the collective.

Third, those who are unproductive or too high an economic burden to the state must be eliminated.

Fourth, dissent from government policies must be squelced in order to prevent an uprising or civil unrest.

Obama and the Democrats are working to implement all four of the hallmarks of progressism.

Taxpayer funding of abortion and all forms of birth control will help eliminate more people as will their economic, social, and educational policies.

We have heard Obama and the Dems talk about sacrifice and will continue to hear a lot more. They mean, of course, more individual and business wealth will have to be confiscated in order to fund the ever-expanding and new government entitlement and regulatory programs.

With Obama's health destruction bill, the chronically ill, elderly and poor will be the first to help deplete those among the living.

Obama's attempts to eliminate our right to own guns will never end. He will control the Internet, all media, and all forms of communication to reign in any dissent against his policies. We have seen how he reacts to dissent.

With Obama and the Democratic Party we are well on our way to a worse welfare state than any in Europe and our lives are in danger as well.

Not that the Wilsonians care to bother, but why, I ask them, does the Constitution define a procedure for instituting amendments to it, if the document itself has no prescribed meaning?

At the point where the Constitution means anything, it means nothing, and the United States is but a parliamentary democracy with a three-chamber Congress: the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, the last of which never stands for election, issues edicts to which there is no appeal, and accounts only to itself.

The first step in recovering Constitutional rule of law is to greatly curtail the now-untrammeled power of the Supreme Court.

This article presents us with the discussion that must take place in this country. The role of the federal government is the defining issue that will determine whether we prosper or fail.

Progressives are successful because those who believe in limited government are not focusing enough attention on the alternatives to never-ending federal programs. Conservatives need participate in private sector charity and actively promote it as the better alternative. Progressives are viewed as benevolent, while conservatives are portrayed as selfish and uncaring. Until this situation changes, we are headed down the path Greece has blazed for us.

The ever-expanding burden of "rights" that the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress are pushing create a colossal fiscal burden upon the productive members of society. By productive, I mean those of us who work hard, pay our taxes, served (or support those who do serve) in the military, invest our money wisely, and live within our means. At some point the question of why our tax dollars are being used to support people who will not support themselves must be asked.

Dear "Have-Nots" :

Start a To-Do list and make this one of your top ten priorities:

Become self reliant enough to be in a position to politely refuse any charity from any person, Government or group.

When all of you have completed this, the world will be at peace.

The problem is perennial. "Those who would rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." In Democracy in America, Alexix de Toqueville predicted that a representative form of government like ours would eventually collapse when enough people decided (or determined) that they could live off the government, because then they would just vote collectively for those politicians who would pass laws to allow them to do so.

In America, we have so far avoided the utter and complete collapse of our republic, but it is lying prone, in intensive care, on life support, with a terminal disease: "progressivism" is its current name.

Progressives believe the government is the answer to every prayer, by which they mean using other people's money, confiscated by taxation, to make sure that every one of their desires (which somehow magically become "needs" which then morph into "entitlements" almost overnight) are met. They do not believe in personal responsibilty, that

"freedom" means having the tools to strive for success, or in the idea that if the government can give it to you, the government can take it away just as easily. Instead, they believe in blaming others for their misfortune, that success or its rewards should just be handed to them, and that government is here to help them.

Until they grow up and face reality, they are lost, and if they ever gain the majority, so are all the rest of us.