Directing attention to the “defining issue of our time,” Barack Obama recently warned the American people of the “fundamental threat to the American dream, our way of life, and what we stand for around the globe.” The President wasn’t referring to terrorism, an economic crisis, the presently occurring healthcare disaster, or human rights violations. Rather, he was talking about the trends of wealth inequality and decreasing economic mobility in the United States.
Fast food restaurants will get the joy of having labor unions stage protests demanding an increase in their worker’s wages and more than doubling the overall federal minimum wage this week. Everyone wants to make more money, so what could go wrong?
There are many parallels to the Titanic and United States of America that we can see today. Both seemed invincible and yet both were destined to doom. As the Titanic of old could not float with a huge fatal hole in her hull, so also America cannot stay afloat with a hole of a dominate godless, licentious and moral relativistic society only seeking to do evil and lawlessness.
If President Obama really thinks there is income inequality and that it's a bad thing, he should start with his own family, and leading by example. But he's not going to do that. He's a typical liberal. He and his liberal friends are "charity cheapskates" when it comes to giving their own money. What he means by fixing income inequality is that YOU have to give up YOUR money against your will to "help" people who may or may not actually need help.
States have gone bankrupt, been invaded by foreigners, experienced massive power outages, and have seen terrorist attacks successfully waged upon them, with no effective protection from the government of the Union. Always, the response of the Union has been a knee-jerk reaction that results in higher taxes, more government agencies which snoop and spy on us, and less freedom for the citizens of the States. Might not the Citizens of New York, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, or Texas have fared better if they didn’t have to rely on the celebrity-politicians in Washington, D.C. for their own security?
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964