The President Of Diamond Vs. The President Of The USA

Steve GeppiOnce upon a time, it was widely believed that Diamond Comic Distributor president, CEO and owner, Steve Geppi had major political ambitions. In 2010 he donated $500 to the Democratic Party. In 2003 he donated $1000 each to Democrats Dick Gephardt and $1000 for Dutch Ruppersberger. And in 1995, he was a fundraiser for Democrat Maryland Governor Parris Glendening.

But that was then.

Today he launched a new manifesto, however, And it was aimed squarely at Democrats and President Obama. He posted on Facebook,

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 are a result of different choices leading to different consequences.

Those who choose wisely and responsibly 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. 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 short sighted 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.

"Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it.

Following up discussion about attribution saying,

Damon, if this was incorrectly attributed to Lou Holtzman, then we should be acknowledging, and crediting Bob Lonsberry for penning this brilliant, and accurate essay. It's the content of what is said here that is what's significant. I could care less who gets credit, but definitely believe it is on point! Thank you for correcting my error, but I hope you appreciate the sentiment!

Although for those who did disagree,

I respect you right to disagree Damon, but if you have an opinion that differs, I would appreciate you posting it on your Facebook page, not mine. I am not interested in hearing about "polemic", as you say, attacks on "poor Obama" on my page. I have aright to believe what I believe to be true about this administration and the left wing liberal agenda, so I post what I know to be true in my life experience. To accuse me of "contributing" to the decrease in the value of discourse in this country, is very insulting, and condescending, because I do care a great deal about that! Just because I choose to post my beliefs on my page and you don't agree, doesn't give you the right to insult me on in front of my Facebook friends, so I don't appreciate your having done so. Liberals get enough help from the media already without having to use my real estate!

But then…

I think I will now do to liberals what they seem to keep doing to me! I think I shall go on their Facebook pages to critique, argue whatever they say that I don't agree with, which is a great deal! If you don't agree with or like my posts, simply delete me. I won't be offended!

And talking about income inequality in the country,

Eva, there are exceptions to everything, and your experience might be one of them. I recognize there are opportunity disparities in this country. That said, blaming the rich and corporate America for jobs being overseas is very much inaccurate, as is saying that the very wealthy don't pay their fair share of taxes. As I said earlier, there are exceptions to everything, so there may be some taking advantage of the tax system, but rest assured the rich pay, and last time I checked, over 97% of all income tax. Democratic policies that are anti-business, and what have produced the incentive to take jobs overseas. Would you rather these companies and their job opportunities not exist at all? Why should those people who are ambitious enough to take the risk financially and otherwise to create companies that produce jobs, be penalized for having done so, and accused of being greedy? If you ask your employer for a raise because you work hard, are you being greedy? History always repeats itself! If elected officials, for the sake of their own families continue to do things that ensure them being elected, such as promoting entitlement programs, are they being greedy for looking out for their own families at the expense of those who are poverty-stricken and dependent? Every example of socialism in history has lead to disaster. Love it or hate it, capitalism is what keeps a country economically healthy, and affords the opportunity for those qualified to work, and moreover, willing to work, to make a decent living. There has never, nor will there be ever totally equality in income, just as there has never been, nor ever will be, equality in effort. Being born or forced to live in a poverty stricken area, is indeed a handicap, but I don't believe it should be used as an excuse to become dependent on others. There are countless cases of those who rose above these obstacles to become successful, or at least self-sustaining, but when the system, with all its entitlement programs, makes it more advantageous to stay home than to work, people tend to say why bother? Therefore, the failing economic policies of those who want to keep getting elected, despite knowing these policies don't work, and blaming those who are ambitious, is a recipe for disaster, as has been proven throughout history. I was born into a poor family, wherein I didn't even realize I was poor, until my Mother couldn't afford to send me to the high school I wanted to attend. I was devastated. Soon there after, my Mother was going on welfare and food stamps, which prompted me, as your experience did, to pursue an immediate job and leave high school so that I could support my mother and family. I could have felt sorry for myself, recognizing that I would never, or possibly never, achieve the dreams I had dreamed, but the reality was we all needed to eat and have a roof over our head, so I took what ever job I could get, no matter what it paid, to provide for my family. As it turned out, my work ethic, and recognizing a job was a privilege, led meto become a recognized hard worker, that my employers could trust and thereby advance me. Hard work, even at a low rate of pay, was my preference, as I had pride that prompted me to prefer work over subsidy. My Mother could've continued to get welfare and food stamps that she needed, but I was healthy, and had no excuse for not going to work. Yes, jobs are hard to get at times, but as an employer of over 900 people myself now, I know those jobs tend to go to those who show the most willingness to work hard and thereby keep those jobs with the hope of advancement. There is no "One size fits all" solution to the economy. It will always be influenced by effort, and when effort is deemed to be something that is described or defined by where you started out, we have a big problem!

So for those who believe the comic industry is dominated by left wing liberal types… maybe not anymore…?

Enjoyed this? Please share on social media!

About Rich Johnston

Founder of Bleeding Cool. The longest-serving digital news reporter in the world, since 1992. Author of The Flying Friar, Holed Up, The Avengefuls, Doctor Who: Room With A Deja Vu, The Many Murders Of Miss Cranbourne, Chase Variant. Lives in South-West London, works from Blacks on Dean Street, shops at Piranha Comics. Father of two. Political cartoonist.
Comments will load 8 seconds after page. Click here to load them now.