Oh boy, you are digging your hole even deeper.

Any entry-level econ course would do:
https://economics.yale.edu/courses/econ-110b-01-introduction-microeconomic-analysis-1
https://economics.yale.edu/courses/econ-111a-01-introduction-macroeconomic-analysis

To which of the four areas: education, healthcare, food, and shelter, we don't have rights?

Is someone denying you any of those things because of who you are?

The US has the best education and healthcare on this planet.  Food is cheap and abundant.  There are places in the US where living expenses are lower than in many places in Latin America or Asia, not to mention European countries or Canada.

US citizens have more RIGHTS than citizens of any other country on the planet.

PS. Just because you cannot buy your pony does not mean that you don't have the right to buy that pony.

PPS. On second thought, I think you should take an elementary English language class.  You are confusing (and redefining) the meaning of English words. 

a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

But Freedom House, an independent watchdog organization that releases an annual report on freedom around the world, measures it in terms of civil liberties and political rights.

Just re-read your post again and let it sink in.

Capitalism does not take away your rights.  Quite the opposite.

What do you want the "resources necessary for survival" to be tied to?

I think you are just confused.  I suggest you take some Econ 101 class.

I thought I got through to you.  I guess not.

I repeat.  There is no theft under the capitalist division of labor.  The free market is the most efficient system to self-correct any price dislocations (when workers are underpaid or overpaid).  Market participants are willingly participating to exchange goods and services.

If you happen to use the inefficiencies of the free market to your advantage, all the power to you.  
You just use the opportunity available to all.  You are not stealing from anyone.

When a lioness sees a gazelle she will not wait for other lionesses to come around, she will go for the kill.

Capitalism best resembles nature.  Are people being taken advantage of?  Of course.  No question about it.  
There are many overpriced products/services being bought/sold as we speak.  Calling it theft is disingenuous.

When you are homeless, anyone who eats every day is not poor.
When you are working for $20/hr, homeless people are poor.
When you are making $100/hr, people who make $20/hr are poor.
When you are financially independent, people who work are poor.

Today, I am financially independent, I have retired at 52 a few years back.  To me people who are not financially independent, have to work to make a living, are slaves to the system and are poor.   That was not the case 35 years ago when I was homeless.

My world view might be different from 90% of the population but it is based on many things, mostly on what I experienced in my life.

Most people keep working until they die, even when they become financially independent.  Many slaves did not leave their masters even after they were emancipated.  Many 'wage' workers will continue to be 'wage' workers all their lives, giving them money, or changing the system, or killing all the rich people will not change them, they will still want to work as 'wage' workers.  That is just how people are.

If this was not the case, you would never see older 'wage' workers.

I don't hate Muslims at all but I find some of their beliefs so weird. What I can't believe is that they're not allowed to eat pork or any food with pork's blood. I heard that their reason why they are not allowed to eat such kind of food because their Quran says that pigs are filthy animals. Am I right with that?

Another belief they believe in which I can't perceive is that they are ready to die for their Allah. They are so brave for doing it in all fairness but I still think it was idiocy, no offense but it makes no sense to commit suicide just for their god.

It's easy in today's world to blame Islam of backwards savagery against women, children, etc. Yet this is still protected by the left?

Why? When at the same time Christianity is under attack in the modern political and social climate. Other than the obvious propagation of pedophilia by the Catholic church, Christians' rape and pillaging days are over for the most part.

Other than instinctual human greed, religion has caused more conflict in human history than anything else. Why do we still need it? Are there any merits left?

I understand a common argument here may be that it instills fear in common folk and helps to provide them a reason to behave but we shouldn't need the fear of deities smiting us to act as a normal citizen and respect others' rights. You can also be a hopeful human being without religion. This is not a debate of "not all the religious folk are bad eggs" the debate here is why it still exists in any form in the year 2019.

The point is this regarding Islam. Is Islam what the vast mass of Muslims say that it is? Or is Islam what the Koran and Hadiths say that it is?

If every Muslim is his own authority regarding what Islam is, then Islam is an entirely broken religion. Why? Because every Muslim thinks about his religion at least slightly differently than all other Muslims. But mostly because there are many factions of Islam that say that Islam is something different than all the others.

If every Muslim is his own authority, but fundamentally says that he bows to what the Koran and Hadiths say, then why don't Muslims obey the Koran all the way like ISIS attempts to do? How is ISIS attempting to obey the Koran all the way? Here's how:

The Koran and Hadiths say 3 basic things for Muslims to do:
1. Obey the Koran and Hadiths, and live in peace with all other Muslims;
2. Live in peace with the infidels while trying to convert them to Islam. This may take some time;
3. If infidels won't turn to Islam, ultimately destroy them. How much time to give them? This is a judgmental thing. The Koran and Hadiths prescribe the time limits and the circumstances for Muslims to make their move.

Does Islam call for violence? In the Koran and Hadiths it does. See http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm.

So, what is a Muslim? Someone who picks and chooses what he will believe about Islam? Or someone who does the things that the Koran says as listed 1, 2, 3, above? A Muslim can't do what the Koran says if he doesn't know what the Koran says. A peaceful Muslim isn't doing the violence that the Koran calls for. But ISIS is... peaceful to other faithful Muslims, but violence to non-violent Muslims who won't destroy the people of other religions like ISIS is doing.

If you are a peaceful Muslim who won't destroy people of other religions, you are at best a very weak Muslim. Why? Because you aren't following the basics of Islam as written in the Koran and Hadiths.

Now you really pissed me off. You motherfucker, you know nothing about being poor and eating from the dumpsters.  I was fucking homeless, ate from the dumpsters, and slept in public parks.  You little twit.  That is who you are, you know shit and you think you can save the world with your bullshit propaganda which does nothing but instills hope in other lazy, criminal minds.

So shut the fuck up with your bullshit.

You know shit, are lazy as fuck and are looking for an easy way out, you will die poor, so will your children and grandchildren.

October 8, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – One of the most consistently interesting things about our cultural debates surrounding marriage and sexuality is the resistance that many of those on the secular side of the spectrum exhibit towards the slowly growing mountain of evidence supporting the fact that our Judeo-Christian values are often essential to both social stability as well as personal happiness. While the soft-core porn mags sold at supermarket checkouts urge young men and women to engage in sizzling sexual experiments and public sex education teaches children to believe that anything is on the table, social studies tell us that we are robbing them of the future many of them desire—or will desire in the future.

Let’s take a look at just two recent reports. The New York Times, as The Blaze noted at the time, “caused an avalanche of anger” after they published a report by the Institute for Family Studies and the Wheatley Institution finding that “the happiest of all American wives consider themselves religious conservatives.” 

A tweet sent out by New York Times Opinion was apparently particularly galling: “It turns out that the happiest of all wives in America are religious conservatives, followed by their religious progressive counterparts.”

In the report, researchers detailed the fact that women who report having “above-average satisfaction with their marriages” are often both religious and conservative, and the New York Times op-ed on the findings noted that “Fully 73 percent of wives who hold conservative gender values and attend religious services regularly with their husbands have high-quality marriages. When it comes to relationship quality, there is a J-curve in women’s marital happiness, with women on the left and the right enjoying higher quality marriages than those in the middle—but especially wives on the right.”

This should not be particularly surprising. Those who believe that marriage is a sacred institution constituting a life-long, monogamous commitment to one person are, generally (and statistically) speaking, going to enter marriage with a radically different perspective than those who believe the whole thing can be called off with less difficulty than a cell phone contract. 

If, as many religious people believe, marriage is a covenant rather than a contract, this has obvious implications for both entering marriage and exiting one. If divorce is not seen as the exercise of the opt-out clause in a civil arrangement but rather, as Peter Kreeft once put it, “the murder of the one flesh” union, then the severing of the marital bond is obviously far more significant than our current social norms would have us believe.

The same is true for sexual activity prior to marriage. I recall one older fellow I worked with years ago asking me, with disbelief, how I could conceive of entering a marriage without first sleeping with my partner. After all, he explained, you wouldn’t purchase a car without test-driving it first. Side-stepping the offensiveness of his comparison of a spouse to a car and marriage to the purchase of one (the unspoken and perhaps unrecognized implication that a “newer model” might be preferable down the road did not come up), the evidence simply does not bear out the idea that multiple sexual partners prior to marriage is beneficial to committing to one person for a lifetime. In fact, it is rather bewildering that so many seem to believe that promiscuity is good practice for monogamy.

This, too, was once again proven by sociologist Nicholas Wolfinger of the University of Utah over at the Institute for Family Studies. He found, unsurprisingly, that Americans who had only ever slept with their spouses were by far the most likely to report that their marriage was “very happy.” Conversely, women who had between six and ten sexual partners in their lives reported the lowest odds of marital happiness (thirteen percentage points lower than women who had only reported one partner.) The same proved true for men, who also reported lower marital satisfaction after one partner, although their satisfaction did not dip as low as it does for women.

According to The Atlantic’s report on the study:

“Contrary to conventional wisdom, when it comes to sex, less experience is better, at least for the marriage,” said W. Bradford Wilcox, a sociologist and senior fellow at the Institute for Family Studies. In an earlier analysis, Wolfinger found that women with zero or one previous sex partners before marriage were also least likely to divorce, while those with 10 or more were most likely. These divorce-proof brides are an exclusive crew: By the 2010s, he writes, just 5 percent of new brides were virgins. And just 6 percent of their marriages dissolved within five years, compared with 20 percent for most people.

Other studies’ findings have also supported the surprising durability of marriages between people who have only ever had sex with one another. In this latest study, women who have had one partner instead of two are about 5 percentage points happier in their marriages, about on a par, Wolfinger says, with the boost that possessing a four-year degree, attending religious services, or having an income over $78,000 a year has for a happy marriage. (In his analysis, he controlled for education, income, and age at marriage.)

If our governments were genuinely interested in promoting personal happiness and social stability, public sex education would be conveying the findings of these reports and many, many others that concur. 

The ideologues running our education system are not committed to doing what is best for those in their charge, but instead promoting their own set of beliefs—beliefs, it must be pointed out, that have led to a polarized culture with rates of family breakdown unheard of in human history outside of war or natural disaster. Many young people in our society today are searching for answers, and those answers will not be found in what the secular establishment is offering. They can be found in the beautiful traditions we cast aside.

I don't see him advocating beating anywhere in his statement... I think you need to calm down just a bit.

The fact that Islam is a supremacist, imperialist political ideology masquerading as a religion.

The fact that Muslims do not kick out Islamists and Jihadists from their ranks.

The fact that the Quran contains scientific nonsense and contradictions.

You are forgetting that many educated people do not want to be rich (yourself included), they want to be workers (and stay poor) all their lives.

How are you going to pull them out of poverty?

BTW, you cannot educate people who do not want to be educated.  The desire to change their lives has to come from within.

10 seconds google search:

https://www.affordablecolleges.com/rankings/community-colleges/

Most offer state grants. Welding, electrician, plumbing professions are way better than some 'wage' jobs at retail or a fast food joint.

For those more ambitious, accounting, business administration, followed by scholarships to universities.  

Don't tell me you cannot find a solution.  Tell me you don't want to look, that I will believe you.

Any rational worker would understand his predicament and would do anything in his power to change it.  Investment, education, looking for better places to sell their skills, starting their own business to sell their skills and abilities, saving money comes to mind.

You cannot blame the system for the actions of irrational workers. 

Workers in today's capitalist societies have more choices than ever before in history.  The same cannot be said about communist societies.
There is no mechanism for a worker in the communist society to become financially independent.  The communist system explicitly prohibits it.
Remember the famous rule from both the Soviet constitution and the Bible: "He who does not work, shall not eat".