A Picture is worth a Thousand Words!

Interesting Question, from the man who ought to be the next president of the US!

President Obama's Socialism Agenda

In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, said this in response to Obama's "income inequality speech":  Enjoy,

Willie P

    Two Americas The Democrats are right, there are two Americas . The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don’t.  That’s the divide in America .

     It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.  That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it. The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.”   He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just. That is the rationale of thievery.  The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you.  Vote Democrat. 

     

    That is the philosophy that produced Detroit .   It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America . It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal. The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope.

    The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences.   Those who choose wisely and responsibility have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.   Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education and/or employment. You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course;  you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

    My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do.  There is significant income inequality between us.  Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort.   While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes.  His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth?  No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes. It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom.  The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing.  Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions. Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.

    The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get."  Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way.   He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas , and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other.  

    America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts.   It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization. What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism.  He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit.  That’s what socialists offer.  Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas , coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincolns' maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Presidential Lies and their Consequences!

Bill Neinast

IN PERSPECTIVE

The relentless drum beats of the media were as relentless and strong as the waves beating the shores in Galveston. The year was 1974.  The subject was Richard Nixon.

Two years earlier that president had lied.  He tried to cover up his knowledge of a burglary in which no one was hurt physically and no property was damaged.

According to the democrats who controlled Congress in 1974, a President who lies to the public cannot stand.  Notwithstanding that the lying began two years earlier, Nixon went down with a resignation under an impeachment resolution. 

That was then.  This is now, 40 years later.  Now a president is expected to lie.

Remember President Bill Clinton?  Remember his statement on public TV emphasized with a bit of podium pounding, “I did not have sex with that woman.”?

When Monica Lewinsky’s semen stained dress proved that claim of innocence to be a lie, the press’ reaction was basically, “Well, boys will be boys,” and, after all, he is a democrat and the incident he is lying about happened sometime ago.

Today, there are again questions about lying in the White House. Now, however, any attempt to determine if President Obama and his administration covered up, i.e.,lied, about the cause of the death of four Americans in Benghazi. Libya, is denigrated by the press and democrats in Congress.  That story is almost two years old.

What’s the concern with that old news?  In the words of Hillary Clinton, “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” (Emphasis added)

Well, it did make a difference. The difference was made in the Presidential election that was underway at the time of the attack and of the lying.  President Obama had recently announced how “he,” not the Navy Seals, had dared to take Osama bin Laden down and decimated al-Qaida.  The official line was that al-Qaida, without its head, was now on the run.

If the country were told that U.S. facilities and officials in Benghazi were under a well planned, coordinated attack with sophisticated weapons, some voters might think that al-Qaeda was alive and well. Why were special forces not dispatched to aid the Americans? How could that be, if the President had said it was not so?

So someone somewhere in the President’s inner circle came up with the line that the attacks were spontaneous uprisings over a U.S. made video critical of the Prophet Mohammed. Although no one knew how long the “spontaneous” riots might last, military forces were not dispatched to help the Americans because “there was not enough time.”

As usual, the party line is, “We do not know who in the Administration came up with this knowingly false misinformation.   That’s our story, and we are sticking to it.”

There was, however, a bombshell exploding last week.  A memo that was not released to a Congressional request for all material relating to Benghazi was released under a court order.  The memo indicates that the White House was aware within 48 hours that the attacks in Benghazi were not spontaneous uprisings.

Nonetheless, Susan Rice, the appointed spokesperson for the White House, was instructed to go on all the TV networks and perpetuate the lie that the slaughter in Benghazi was the result of that evil American made video.

As the facts of Benghazi continue to trickle out, a new question is raised.  As many responsible people within the Presidents chain of civilian and military forces knew the mayhem in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, where was the President and what was he doing at the time?  It was early morning.  Who was answering the phone in the White House?

This has finally jolted Speaker of the House Boehner to appoint a special committee to investigate the matter.

There is no surprise at the reaction of the press and democrats.  Hey, this is old news.  It happened two years ago.  In the words of Hillary, “What difference at this point does it make?”

Forty years ago, investigating a two year old burglary that did not result in damage, injury, or death made a difference as far as the democrats and press were concerned.  It resulted in the impeachment and resignation of a president who lied.

Presidential lies are nothing new.  In recent history, Eisenhower lied about Gary Powers and the U-2 flights over Russia.  LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin attacks. Nixon lied about the Watergate burglary.  Clinton lied about Lewinsky.  Obama lied and is lying about Benghazi and the Affordable Care Act.

Of those, only Nixon paid a price for his coverup.  If the press and democrats have their way, Obama will escape Nixon’s fate, even though he covered up the decision to not even try to save the lives of four Americans.

So here’s the perspective.

Hillary Clinton wants to know what difference it makes now, almost two years after the attack?

The difference it makes may be answered in another utterance during her earlier bid for the Oval Office.  It may determine who answers the phone from the president’s bed at 3:00 a.m.