Funny part is, he's just reiterating EO's he's already proclaimed :o
.
He's "double-dipping" on the - B'ROCK IS FABULOUS MEME'
.
BUCK FARACK

;)
https://www.facebook.com/realsharpton?filter=2

.

.

....................... FULL ARTICLE ..............

.
http://jatticus.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/economic...

Almost 15 minutes of your time. Worth it.
Grow capital. Don't kill it with taxes.
Choose between the two Americas.
See which one is better.

President Obama proposes an American of hope and change based on income redistribution. See what happens to the income of Americans under his socialist economics.
Even if you support Liberal class warfare, look what happens to the poor and middle classes.

I named my vision of America, which is shared by millions of Conservatives and Libertarians, our Munificent Destiny. See how capital growth provides more dignity, justice and hope for all individuals.

The starting stats came from a Heritage Organization posting on the web.

The multipliers are those I recall from graduate school economics (JFK School of Government, Harvard University, CL ‘81). The unemployment factors are extrapolated from the latest Labor Department Bureau of Statistics on the web.

Here is how to see the two Americas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04y35I-r3Xw

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 Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
http://jatticus.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/economic...

Older but relevant
In early January of this year,
2014, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, said this in response to Obama’s “Income inequality speech”:
((((((((((( Two Americas )))))))))))
The Democrats are correct, 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 not’s, 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.

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.

continued -------------------->

Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/barack_hus...

FORGOT HOW TO IMBED A VIDEO :(

One of the unexplained mysteries in the scanty documentation of the early life of the 44th President of the United States is the appearance of the name Soebarkah as his last name on an official document filled out by his mother.

In a recent contribution to American Thinker, Nick Chase offers very persuasive evidence that the long-form birth certificate released by Obama is a forgery.

While in the midst of developing an argument supporting the idea that Obama was adopted by the Indonesian Lolo Soetoro, Chase states:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xck4t1jVnAQ

One of the most sacred tenets of Progressive ideology is the theory that political systems must be adapted to meet the needs of their time–meaning: they are constantly evolving, ever-changing entities that require constantly evolving, ever-changing governmental systems to adapt to those changes.

Another reason why the left so strongly emphasizes the concept of change.

This belief in the constant evolution of political systems also explains why progressives look at the U.S. Constitution as a “living, breathing document” (Darwinian government — evolving),
instead of a document that clearly lays out absolutes in the form of checks and balances and the separation of powers between the co-equal branches of government–executive, legislative and judicial (Newtonian government — fixed, absolute).
For the progressives, the separation of powers (see positive & negative liberties) is a hindrance to their desire of creating a large administrative bureaucracy that will provide for all the spiritual, emotional and physical needs of the American populace.

So let me just stop right here and get back to the issue of progressive racism. But as you can see, it’s difficult to separate racism from Marxian socialism–as a matter of fact, it’s impossible, as we will soon see.

Naturally, anyone who has studied the history of the Democrat Party knows its history is one steeped in racism; and it started well before the term “racism” ever entered the American lexicon.

But since the left insists on rewriting their own intensely racist past, and perpetuating the lie that the Democrats overwhelmingly supported the civil rights legislation of the 1960?s, I think it behooves us to review some Democrat history:

. http://gulagbound.com/42841/progressive-racism/

" It’s hard to study socialism and its influence on the United States and not run smack dab into the Progressive Movement.

The history of “progressivism” in American politics goes back a long way.

Some of the most profound structural
and ideological changes to our republican form of government–as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution in Article 4, Section. 4–occurred a hundred years ago during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson (e.g. 16th & 17th Amendments, Federal Reserve Act).

It was Wilson who attempted to rebrand the Democrat Party as the “Progressive Party” in 1916.

But as I started to outline an article on the progressive policies of Woodrow Wilson, and the ideology of socialism in general, I decided to deal with two subjects that kept rearing their ugly heads during my research separately–specifically, socialism and racism.

Over and over again, the issue of racism comes up when I study the ideology, theory and philosophy of Marxian socialism"

. http://gulagbound.com/42841/progressive-racism/