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":
The Democrats are right,
there are two Americas.
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
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
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
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
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
Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is
significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an
of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While
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
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
It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is
freedom. The freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. There is
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
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
Lincoln's maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
Pass this on........