Glenn Reynolds said that the worse Barack Obama performed the blacker he would get. That is true, but it’s also true that the worse Obama performs the more his inner Karl Marx bleeds through and Obama’s real character is on full display right now.
And think for a moment about how Obama is framing his economic speeches. The core of what he’s trying to do, he said at Knox College in Illinois Wednesday, is not to make the economy better or create jobs. It’s to eliminate inequality.
So in many ways, the trends that I spoke about here in 2005 — eight years ago — the trend of a winner-take-all economy where a few are doing better and better and better, while everybody else just treads water — those trends have been made worse by the recession. And that’s a problem.
This growing inequality not just of result, inequality of opportunity — this growing inequality is not just morally wrong, it’s bad economics. Because when middle-class families have less to spend, guess what, businesses have fewer consumers . . .
And that’s why reversing these trends has to be Washington’s highest priority. (Applause.) It has to be Washington’s highest priority. (Applause.) It’s certainly my highest priority. (Applause.)
He throws in “inequality of opportunity,” but what Obama is really angry about is inequality of result. He’s mad that some people have more than others. That we’re not spreading the wealth around enough. That people are getting ahead even though you didn’t build that. Because at a certain point, you’ve earned enough money.
It’s the politics of resentment, touted by someone who harbors resentment. It’s at bottom the philosophy of, gimme what you got, you rich bastard.
It’s anger. And, as it expressed itself in the speech Wednesday, it wants payback.
If income inequality isn’t undone, blacks in this country will riot, rape, pillage and it’s George’s fault. Zimmerman, not Bush:
“If we don’t do anything, then growth will be slower than it should be. Unemployment will not go down as fast as it should. Income inequality will continue to rise,” he said. “That’s not a future that we should accept.”
A few days after the acquittal in the Trayvon Martin case prompted him to speak about being a black man in America, Mr. Obama said the country’s struggle over race would not be eased until the political process in Washington began addressing the fear of many people that financial stability is unattainable.
“Racial tensions won’t get better; they may get worse, because people will feel as if they’ve got to compete with some other group to get scraps from a shrinking pot,” Mr. Obama said. “If the economy is growing, everybody feels invested. Everybody feels as if we’re rolling in the same direction.”
And Obama wants that civil unrest in this country:
Stuart Varney: Obama used the term “inequality” more than he used the word “growth”. And this is a problem, according to Charles Payne.
Charles Payne: It is a problem. He talked about [income inequality] being morally wrong. You know, Stuart, if you and I entered this building and there were different rules for each of us, that would be morally wrong. But if I dropped out of high school and smoked weed all day and you worked your way through college and made more money than I did, that’s not inequality, that’s just.
Here’s what this president did: he tried to condemn capitalism. He tried to condemn success. He promotes mediocrity. And he’s making excuses for people to fail in this country, instead of being honest about it.
His phrases: “people who lost their homes through no fault of their own”, “people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own…” You know what: if I own a business and have 10 employees and things get bad, guess what? I’m not going to fire my best employees! Maybe you did lose your job because you weren’t up to snuff!
The bottom line is this: the president is pushing this agenda. That America is somehow a mean-spirited country without opportunity and we’re going backwards. When, in fact, every single year we get closer to that “more perfect union” that we strive for.
[On Obama’s prediction that income inequality will increase and “social tensions will rise as various groups fight to hold on to what they have”]
In my mind — and I hate to say this — I think President Obama would love to see civil unrest in this country very much like the Arab Spring. I think what he’s trying to do is to spark this revolution against the wealthy, against the “One Percent” who are holding us back, who are hoarding this money,
You know Democrats are trotting out this statistic about how much money the top one percent controlled in 1979 versus how much they control now. Well, it’s quadrupled, as if it’s the same group of people who’ve been greedy with money and greedy with opportunity.
You know who it is? It’s a kid like Lebron James, who was in the bottom one percent and is now in the top one percent. And his salary skews that top one percent to make it look 400 percent better. What that number shows is that opportunities for America… not the bad part of America, the good part of America.
It’s much easier to take from others than it is to work for something
Alinsky saw social tensions as a necessary circumstance to effective community organizing. Without anger, without the have-nots blaming the haves, it is harder to accumulate power. Alinsky considered the creation of social tensions, or the exploitation of them, as essential to move wealth and power from those who have it to those who don’t.
Once “social tensions” are stoked, all that is left is the tactical organization.
Ronald Reagan rallied Americans together. Obama knows only how to divide us.
A couple of notable things:
Income inequality
It is highly significant that Obama speaks of “income inequality” instead of “wealth inequality.” Income inequality isolates and protects the über-wealthy like the Pelosi’s, the Kerry’s the Kohl’s, the Blankfeins and the Kennedy’s who never have to work another day in their lives. You’re not going to touch their wealth. As always, those working the hardest will be made to bear the brunt of the burden.
Obama’s economic record absolutely sucks:
Median household income has generally trended lower but has plunged under Obama
And that’s the good news. The bad news is that median real household income is $2,718, or 5%, lower than the $54,218 median in June 2009 when the recession officially ended. Median incomes typically fall during recessions. But the striking fact of the Obama economy is that median real household income has fallen even during the recovery.
Obama discourages growth by discouraging work.
The food stamp and disability rolls have exploded, which reduces inequality but also reduces the incentive to work and rise on the economic ladder. This has contributed to a plunge in the share of Americans who are working—the labor participation rate—to 63.5% in June from 65.7% in June 2009. And don’t forget the Fed’s extraordinary monetary policy, which has done well by the rich who have assets but left the thrifty middle class and retirees earning pennies on their savings.
Why Obama can be nothing other than a failure
The core problem has been Mr. Obama’s focus on spreading the wealth rather than creating it.
Barack Obama is more interested in trophies and legacies than in success. He is more interested in Marxism than he is in the overall growth of the economy. No one may succeed until everyone can succeed.
The No Child Left Behind Economy.
In a nutshell, Barack Obama’s economic philosophy can be described this way:
Bob worked the hardest and has eight apples. Mary has three apples. Ed has one apple. Obama would take four apples from Bob and give one to Mary and three to Ed. Each now has four apples. After they have eaten them Bob doesn’t feel like working as hard since most of his will be taken away. Ed realizes he doesn’t need to work at all.
As Margaret Thatcher might say, eventually you run out of other people’s apples. Redistribution, no growth. No incentive.
So now as his Presidency crumbles around him Obama is scurrying around having himself and everyone around him blathering about “phony” scandals like the abuse of the IRS that now touches the Oval Office and the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi (where was Obama during this time?) and the guns he sent into Mexico and he is “pivoting” to the economy for the nineteenth time.
And we also learn that since Obama is President, we don’t need a Congress. He can do it all.
NYT: People questioned your legal and constitutional authority to do that unilaterally — to delay the employer mandate. Did you consult with your lawyer?
MR. OBAMA: Jackie, if you heard me on stage today, what I said was that I will seize any opportunity I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve their prospects, improve their security —
NYT: No, but specifically –
MR. OBAMA: — but where Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.
And if Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re free to make that case. But there’s not an action that I take that you don’t have some folks in Congress who say that I’m usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don’t think that’s a secret. But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions — very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.
So he doesn’t need Congress. He doesn’t need a lawyer. He doesn’t need a Constitution. This is the same Obama who once derided George Bush for not respecting the Constitution:
“I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution,” Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. “I believe in an attorney general who is actually the people’s lawyer, not the president’s lawyer.”
That statement is, as they say, rife with irony. After all, the end justifies the means, right?
And finally, let us recall more words of the One.
“I actually believe in redistribution.”
Obama is worth about $12 million. He will never in his life need to lift a finger but he will, as have past Presidents, become enormously wealthy. I am very curious to see how much of that he redistributes, as thus far he has redistributed nothing of his own outside of his usual tax obligations.
Do as I say and not as I do.
Under Barack Obama the United States is well on its way down the Grove Parc path, as I predicted.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@another vet and @Richard Wheeler, you’d also have to factor in inflation rates and dollar devaluation.
That 2013 investment dollar value of $1.80 increase is a 2009 dollar value of $1.65. So if you want to include the inflation ratio, it’s 65%. And as another vet pointed out, unless you invested on that day, you’re not getting that return in reality since you have to make up for the loss you took prior.
Taking that to the housing example in Rich’s comment #45:
First, unless my calculations are incorrect, a home value in 2011 of $425K, back up to $500K in 2013 is a 17.65% increase, not 20%. Secondly, if you consider the inflation calculation into the mix, there is a cumulative inflation rate of 3.8% between 2011 and 2013. So that $425K home in 2013 is the equivalent of purchasing the same for $441,183 (rounded up a dollar). That would make the actual value increase, adjusted for inflation, at 13.3%.
i.e., Seeking Alpha ran charts last week on various aspects of housing. Housing values now, by the number, are about what they were in 2004. But when adjusted for inflation, they are actually at 2002 values.
The reason for the rebound in prices isn’t a growing economy, it’s a dearth of inventory on the market and continued dangerously low rates. With slim pickings, people were experiencing multiple offers, driving prices up unnaturally… not unlike what was happening pre bubble burst. Zillow economist, Stan Humphries, called the coastal area (California, Florida etal) price increases runaway appreciation. With rates rising, and some inventory pick up happening (including shadow foreclosure inventory that will hit the market), this should slow that unnatural appreciation.
There’s been a lot of lip service that the rising mortgage rates aren’t going to lead to housing value decline, citing past relationship in other historic rate increases. Using the obvious 1980s as an example, when rates could range anywhere from 13-18%, national average house values was in the $55K range. (naturally varying up and down in different parts of the country… details by area in this chart.
Average mean salaries for the third quintile was $17,701 in 1980 (using current dollars, via Census).
More extraordinary was the income growth from 1980 to 1993. That same third quintile jumped from $17,701 annual average in ’80 to $31,272 in 1993… an increase of 76.6% over the 13 years. By contrast, the average third quintile income in 1998 was $38,967. Thirteen years later, in 2011, it had only risen to $49,842… just a 27.98% increase.
With incomes stagnating, and good paying blue collar manufacturing jobs going by the wayside, replaced by lesser paying service jobs, the effect of higher mortgage rates on housing values is going to be considerably different than in the past. One can only afford to buy what the income allows… and a higher rate allows for less house value. Prices will fall, or else the average ranch home will end up being the new upper class “mansion”. Ain’t gonna happen.
What will happen is that those who purchased homes with the runaway appreciation, and at low rates, will have to sit on them for quite some time. They won’t be able to refinance with a 80% LTV requirement (who’d be that crazy to get trade a 3-4% rate for 5+% in the future anyway?). At the price they paid with the low rates, a buyer will have to have a lot higher qualification income at higher rates to bail them out of their existing mortgage, effectively shrinking their buyer pool.
Can kicking is going on big time… enjoy the rose colored glasses view while it’s around. Time has a way of catching up to foolhardy economic management.
The latest visual from from JParson’s RE charts.
@Richard Wheeler: Unfortunately, most people probably didn’t have money to invest at the time, therefore most of the gains made would have been made by people gaining back lost ground. I’m more concerned about the points I raised to Nan in #47. We should be making the future of the country better for younger Americans and instead we are making it worse, mostly for selfish reasons.
@MataHarley: I was on Zillow yesterday checking out real estate in my town. There were 14 pages of properties listed, 5 more than last week. The majority of those properties are either in foreclosure or pre-forclosure. A few more local businesses which have been around for a long time also closed within the last month or so. Count me as one of those not buying into the Party line that we have turned the corner and everything couldn’t be better.
@another vet, yes the foreclosure lag is something many don’t wish to discuss. Last summer, BankRate was talking about another wave of foreclosures hitting, The process has been slowed both by the robosigning lawsuits and the longer process of foreclosures in States using judicial foreclosure procedures.
And as of February this year, while the foreclosure rate is slowing, it’s still going to take at least two more years for foreclosure rates to return to a normal percentage.
Those home sales everyone raves about? Stats show approx 30% of them are investors, and about 45% in markets like Florida.
Mata I’d hoped my little post might bring you back. Welcome. No question the can has been kicked down the road in Stocks. How far up depends on when rates move up and create the agreed apon inevitable sell off.
Don’t think this the case in R.E which should continue to rise IF upward rate movement IS SLOW AND STEADY.
Eleven years up in Gold with 35% retracement past 12 months shows what happens when investors get complacent.
BTW To me 17.65% is “about 20%” lol
Semper Fi Be well.
@Smorgasbord:
What about the questions no one has every asked Obama regarding his “Civilian Force”: “Why, do you need this civilian force that is as well armed as the military?” and “Who exactly is it that you are expecting these heavily armed armed civilian forces to be fighting.” With Obama and the Democrats trying to limit Second Amendment Rights, it certainly isn’t the American people he wishes to arm. So that leads one to ask “If not ‘The People’ then who are these civilians that you wish to arm so heavily.” and finally “Why is it necessary for this undefined civilian force to be armed equally as well as the military?”
@MataHarley: If the Obamacare fall out is as bad as what it appears to be gearing up to be- cuts in hours, increased insurance costs, hiring slowdowns, etc.- those foreclosures rates won’t be going down anytime soon. They’ll probably go up. Add in the potential for another recession rooted here or in Europe with their debt crisis, and we could be in for some more bad times economically.
@Ditto: Smorg along with other right wing conspiracy nuts has pushed this phony MEME that BHO is planning a Gestapo like security force to impose a Marxist or Facist Dictatorship.
In REF.Colorado speech BHO spoke of increasing size of Americorps, Peace Corps and U.S.A. Freedom Corps a volunteer institute launched by W AFTER 9/11 to increase number of trained Foreign Service Officers.
Ditto He never said he was going to “arm them as well as the military.” Crazy hyperbole that gives sane Conservatives a black eye.
Semper Fi
@Ditto: and Smorg
I wouldn’t be too concerned about a civilian security force. Even if he wants one, he’d never get it financed, trained, and operational. In addition, a sizable part of the populace would be opposed to it to the point where he would risk serious push back and he’s pretty much in lame duck status already.
@another vet, no arguments there. It’s the same adage and wisdom… plan for the worst. Hope for the best. In the middle is usually where it lands, but the “middle” still isn’t a good spot for “recovery”. Just more can kicking.
@Richard Wheeler, “slow and steady” may make the RE picture look more acceptable. It will not, however, change the amount of future toxic assets on the books. Can kicking is not confined to the stock market. But Congress nor consumers have never demonstrated much proficiency in long distance financial perspective. If they did, neither SS or Medicare would have passed.
@MataHarley: I planned my retirement assuming SS wouldn’t be there. As far as I’m concerned, they can take whatever money I’m “entitled” to and use it to pay down the debt. That’ll never happen of course. They’ll just spend it somewhere else, probably giving it to someone who has “never” been able to find work. My link in #47 shows that most Americans are still clueless about planning for their retirement years.
@MataHarley:
Nice to see you, girl.
@another vet: “civilian security force?” See my #58
Good for you giving back your SSI
@Richard Wheeler: My SSI probably won’t be there to give back. If it was, I’d do it to reduce the debt period, not to have it spent on some other program which is probably what would happen to it. I’d make the sacrifice only if it would make future generations less indebted because of the fiscal irresponsibility of the current and past generations who have been running the show. That includes your generation and mine. Like I said, it should be the duty of Americans to make it better for future generations not worse. We have become entirely too self centered.
@drjohn, OMG.. I’m “seen”??? Must be that damned NSA snoooping around. LOL
@Petercat: #42
One reason we have our military in different places around the world is that we promised other countries that if they wouldn’t build up a military, we would protect them. We can’t protect them from our borders. We also have to have troops as reasonably close to possible trouble spots so we can get them there quickly. Benghazi is a good example. We had troops close enough to help, but the order to go was never given. I have read different theories as to why.
One theory was that the attack was a kidnapping attempt of the ambassador to try to get the Blind Sheik out of prison, and the president was in on it. I don’t know if this is true, but if it is, that would explain why obama didn’t do anything to stop it, and why he is trying to keep things quiet. Iraq and Afghanistan would be other good examples of where obama doesn’t want us to win.
@Nan G: #44
Not to nitpick, put it is $85,000,000,000 per month.
@another vet: #47
George Bush tried to let the citizens put 10% of their Social Security payments into private accounts. If this would be allowed with first time workers, they will have more coming to them from the 10% THEY could invest, than the 90% the politicians are using to buy votes. Why are some illegals getting a bigger Social Security check each month than I am, and I paid into it all of my working life.
I have written my three REPUBLICAN federal politicians and asked them to introduce a bill that would put Social Security in a separate account, and only those who paid into it would get any back. I received the usual long-winded non-reply that I usually get from things like this. Please ask your politicians to put Social Security in a separate account.
If the USA goes bankrupt, obama will declare martial law, and we can all live off of the government.
@Ditto: #56
I have been answering this question ever since I have seen the video. One or two libs tried to answer it, but didn’t make any sense to me. Hitler called his civilian security force the Brown Shirts. What will obama call his?
WE THE PEOPLE. The ones with guns.
I’m guessing it will be mostly union member, socialist organizations, and anybody that George Soros and other wealthy liberals who want the USA turned into a non-free country hires.
A good example would be Egypt, when the military removed the elected president. Our elected president doesn’t intend to be removed by our military, but it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of higher brass are seeing what obama intends for the USA.
This goes back to your first question. If the military does try to remove obama, he wants an equal force who can try to keep him in power. This was the first thing I thought of when I saw the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
@Richard Wheeler:
You are wrong Richard here is that portion of the speech: He said Civilian Security Force.
@another vet:
I agree that it is doubtful that Obama could wrangle the outright funding for such a civilian security force, even if the public would stand for it. It doesn’t change what I wrote, that no one ever questioned Obama about this civilian security force he was calling for. Yet, we have seen the increased militarization of police forces, often given old military equipment, firearms and armored vehicles. Federal agencies are purchasing massive amounts of arms, ammunition, vehicles and other military gear. At the same time, Democrats have been working hard, pushing for and in some states passing gun control laws and bans that infringe on Second Amendment rights but can not curb the violence of criminals. The public is quite aware of all this and it is partly of what is fueling the concern. Concerns that can not be so simply brushed aside, when SWAT-ting has become a twisted, sometimes deadly “prank,” and a rise in “no warrant” dramatic entries has resulted in the deaths of officers and innocent victims.
@Richard Wheeler: #58
You tried this con job before. Have you watched the video? If not, here is what he said:
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objective that we set. We gotta have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”
Please explain how Americorps, Peace Corps and U.S.A. Freedom Corps. are going to help “to achieve the national security objective that we set.”? Exactly what is the national security objective. Are we going to arm and train the above organizations? Maybe obama will add a few more organizations?
Maybe the problem is in how you and I interpret things. Let’s take the term, “…just as powerful….” Since we are talking military and national security, to me, this means the ability to DESTROY. The more powerful an organization is, the more they can destroy and defend themselves. Then we have, “…just as strong….” Military strong to me, means being able to resist an attack, or being able to attack and conquer. Then we have, …just as well funded.” To me, that means we will spend just as much on the “OBAMA FORCE” (reminds me of the movie “Delta Farce”) as we are on our military. I don’t know if obama is talking within the USA, or around the world. Even if it is within the USA, do you want to pay the extra billions of dollars per year we don’t have to fund the “OBAMA FORCE”?
I’m guessing that you are just like some people who get on the CB radio just to argue, and I usually don’t argue with people who like to argue, so the above comments are more for the ones who don’t know what obama is up to, in the hopes that I might open some eyes to obama’s agenda.
@MataHarley: #60
Maybe this is why stuff like that isn’t taught in public schools. A well educated person will be much less likely to need any government support.
Smorgasbord
you are speaking the truth all the way,
and the proof is that they won’t believe you,
but they believe OBAMA who said the scandals are PHONY,
SAME AS HITLER REGIME,
now they have teachers teaching the suppose good religion of peace from a book they twisted the story to make them look as the truth,
it has going on for 3 years before they got caught now,
they got caught because someone report it,
who is protecting the children beside those who took 3 years to report it,
you would think of that as a: NEVER IN AMERICA
@ilovebeeswarzone: #73
More people are waking up to what is going on in our schools, but not fast enough for me. I don’t have kids in school any more, but I have grandkids in school, and I have warned my kids about the brainwashing of our kids.
@Smorgasbord: The pols won’t put SS in a lock box because it’s a cash cow for them. It’s also a prime example of a pyramid scheme. If a private citizen set up a similar scheme, they’d be in jail for gambling. I’m in favor of getting rid of the system entirely but the problem is, as was noted in my #47, too many people aren’t planning for their retirement which means at some point in their senior years, they’ll become dependent on the government to bail them out. Perhaps the solution is to just let them work the rest of their lives if they don’t want to prepare for their retirement. It’ll take more than one generation to weed people off of relying on the government (i.e. other citizens) to bail them out all the time. The routine of one segment of society having to constantly wipe the asses of the other segment of society is getting old.
@Ditto: There is no doubt Obama wanted a civilian security force. The words came right out of his own mouth unless the video was doctored. Anyone who watched it and can comprehend at the 3rd grade level and who is honest has to admit that. The man wasn’t endorsed twice by the CPUSA for no reason. They can recognize one of their own when they see one. As for police forces arming themselves, I think that has to do with local law enforcement issues. Gangs are becoming more prevalent and better armed. It’s only natural that the police do the same in order to meet the growing threat to their communities. Remember when SWAT came on the scene in the ’70’s? It expanded in the ’80’s and 90’s when the gangs started expanding out of the cities into the ‘burbs. That was to meet the increased threat back then and that was well before Obama. As for the ammo, that was no doubt done to corner and dry up the market as part of an anti 2nd Amendment/gun control agenda.
http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/020813-643707-obama-homeland-security-vast-ammunition-purchases.htm
@Smorgasbord: and Ditto Where did Obama say he planned to “heavily arm” anybody? I believe you guys are carried away on this. Kinda like believing in possibility of Obama’s removal through impeachment process. How bout belief he wasn’t born in Hawaii. He’s a Muslim –I can go on.
Now ya wanna talk about the JFK “magic bullet” I’m in.
@Smorgasbord: Speaking as a former Marine Officer I can ASSURE you the military will NEVER attempt to remove Obama from office. Pure poppycock.
Richard Wheeler
talk for yourself, there are many MARINES , AND OTHER MILITARY,who would help the people arrest him and prevent him from doing further wrong to the people and to step on the laws of the land like he does so to reach his agenda which is against THE PEOPLE’S WISH, AND THE CONSTITUTION,
HE WAS GIVEN A LIMITED POWER AND WANT ALL THE POWER FOR HIMSELF NOT FOR THE PEOPLE,
@ilovebeeswarzone: You’re a Canadian and don’t have a clue about the workings of the U.S. Marines or the American Military.
Richard Wheeler
don’t think for a minute that CANADIANS DON’T FOLLOW WHAT IS GOING ON
IN USA BIG BROTHER,
major hassan you’re a traitor, and murderer terrorist,
you should be hang until death do you depart for hell.
@Smorgasbord: @another vet:
Look’s like Richard’s reading and listening comprehensive skills are either at a 2nd grade level or he’s pretending that he can’t understand what his Messiah’s words mean.
Can you imagine a Marine or any other member of the military who doesn’t understand fully what that means? Neither can I. We aren’t saying that Obama would succeed in his desire to create his own civilian security corps to rival the US military, we’re just pointing out that this goal was also the goal of other Socialist dictators and their movements.
However we would be amiss if we didn’t also look at the DHS, and other agencies (some of which have nothing to do with national security,) and how they have been amassing firearms, ammunition, and military grade equipment, and how they have already been utilizing them to harass innocent civilians. If the agencies are what Obama considers his own personal “civilian security force,” It would seem that he is doing quite well at turning them into his own brown-shirt brigade, and the administrators he has placed over them seem quite willing to target the America people for high scrutiny. The massive amount of espionage committed on the people with blanket approval by agency favoring courts is becoming more and more like the Big Brother warned about in “1984”. So maybe Obama is not so far away from achieving his goal as the naysayers would have us believe. With the historical lessons of how tyrants have taken complete power over nations of complacent people, I believe we are fully justified in our skepticism with this president who acts increasingly like a supreme imperialistic despot”
As for the police and gang warfare, I understand the need of Police to have task forces capable of combating criminal gangs, or terrorist threats, but too often these measures have been used in invasive “no knock” raids on the wrong addresses, SWAT teams have been mobilized on anonymous phone calls that could very well end up with officers and innocent civilians being killed. Some on the far-left think it’s funny to call the cops and have them SWAT conservative Bloggers. Why haven’t law enforcements officers gone after those punk callers, arrested their butts and made an example of them? They have the metadata don’t they?
Ditto
yes sir,
@Ditto:
OMG. Not this again.
If you were in the military, then yes I can. It’s really an amazing display of a lack of self-awareness that you throw around insults, questioning Rich’s reading level, when you’re peddling this laughably paranoid crap. It’s even worse, considering your claim has been debunked ad naseum. He’s talking about the Peace Corp. Are you frightened of them?
@Ditto: C’mon Ditto Do you really think if Obama was planning on an armed Gestapo like personal security force he’d ANNOUNCE IT. You think he’s that stupid?
I know you never served but do you understand the FIRE POWER of The United States Marine Corps? We agree he won’t be able to assemble this DEADLY GHOST FORCE you warn us of. Why waste everyone’s time with such fool hearty sabre rattling? Copy Smorg
Tom just read your#85 Once again a voice of reason.Novel idea posting what he actually said. Thanks
Bees You really are a clueless shill. Kinda sad cus you try so damn hard.
Ditto
don’t waste your time with the trolls,
@Richard Wheeler:
You dare deny my military service to this nation over a political disagreement? You are without honor.
Richard Wheeler
I WAS THINKING THAT YOU ARE THE CLUELESS, AND YOU ARE STUCK ON IT,
NO CHANCE FOR YOU TO ESCAPE,
YOU SAID IT FIRST,
OOPS MY BEST HANNITY IS ON,
BYE
@Ditto: Don’t blow a fuse oh great warrior. When and where did you serve?
Semper Fi
@Tom: Where exactly does he state he was referring to the Peace Corps when he made the comment of a civilian national security force? He doesn’t. Also, the mission of the Peace Corps is foreign, not national (Rich, you should know that). I read this as though he was rambling on about expanding a bunch of different organizations, one of which was a civilian national security force, which of course didn’t exist then nor does it now. The mission statements for all three organizations he mentioned are listed below. NONE of them contain providing national security. Just because Factcheck interpreted his speech one way doesn’t make them right or the final word.
Does this prove he wanted a Gestpho like organization? No. But it does show that he was referring to an organization outside of the three organizations he mentioned. If he didn’t mean he wanted a separate force, he should have made himself more clear in his speech.
http://www.peacecorps.gov/about/mission/
http://www.opm.gov/combined-federal-campaign/reference-materials/memos/2002-cfc-memos/the-usa-freedom-corps/
http://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps
@another vet:
I’m sorry, he says AmeriCorps, a community service group. http://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps
Regarless, Ditto’s claim is asinine. The quote is from 2008. Five years later, he’s bringing it up to prove what? Where is this “civilian security corps to rival the US military”? Who was ever asked to be in it? Where’s is/was the funding, the plan? Where is one person who ever worked on implementing it?
@Tom: I’m aware of the Americorps mission, that’s why I linked it in my initial response to you. Their mission is not related to providing a civilian national security force either. It was supposed to be a domestic version of the Peace Corps. Not exactly national security type stuff. Factcheck is wrong in their statement that “debunked” the claim. The security force was to be a separate entity that obviously never came into being. If he never made the statement again, he may have just been babbling to arouse the crowd. It could have been another broken promise as well. Regardless, it doesn’t change my opinion of him or his presidency and I’m sure mine is the opposite of yours. I’m not very fond of politicians to begin with be they elected ones or the ones you encounter at work or any other type of organization. The phrase “lying, untrustworthy, backstabbing opportunist” comes to mind.
@another vet: #75
I would rather see a mandatory retirement system where the money people are paying into Social Security now, would go into their own private account, like 401(k). It couldn’t be done instantly, because those of us drawing SS now, are deserving of the money we paid into it all of our working lives.
As I have mentioned before, Clark Howard said that if a 15 year old would put $2,000 per year in a Wroth IRA, for 7 years, and leave it there until age 65, if the stock market averages what it has from the time it was started until now, there would be $1,000,000 in the account. That is from a $14,000 investment. If all of my SS money went into such an account, how much would I have now?
@another vet: #76
To me, obama buying up the ammo so civilians can’t have it would be like him buying up all of the cars so we couldn’t drive them. The ammo purchases are increasing business for the companies obama wants to go out of business. The more he buys, the bigger the manufacturers become. He could be doing this for the reason you mentioned, but it seems to me that it is just helping the ammo manufacturers, and we know that obama doesn’t want to do that.
@Richard Wheeler: #77
You are either completely brainwashed by your leader, or you just like to see how far you can keep something going.
Let’s take obama’s statement a piece at a time, like I already did for your. This time, try reading very slowly, so your brainwashed mind can absorb some common sense.
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objective that we set.”
The key word and phrase here are, “military”, and “national security”. In other words, obama is suggesting that we need something to supplement our military, who are armed, in case they can’t handle the situation. Please explain to me how the organizations you mentioned earlier are going to help with “national security”. What is the “national security objective obama set”? Has obama ever explained it?
“We gotta have a civilian national security force…”
A national security force that is UNARMED. It would be interesting to see how that would work. I bring your attention again to the word, “security”. Are you expecting the OBAMA FORCE to be unarmed? As Gomer Pyle would say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise.”
“…that’s just as powerful….”
Explain to me what you think obama meant by that statement. To me, military power means the ability to destroy the enemy.
“…just as strong…”
Explain please.
“…just as well funded.”
We all know what that means: Billions more dollars being spent, and having to raise taxes AGAIN to fund it.
Who will be members of the OBAMA FORCE? What authority will they have? What will they be able to do that the National Guard can’t? Will you trust this president and others to come to be able to activate the OBAMA FORCE without any oversight by any federal agency? Keep in mind that the OBAMA FORCE will be “….just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded” as the military.
I know I am asking you a lot of questions, and you are very slow to answer ANY, so just pick one question at a time, and take as long as you need to answer that one, then when you feel able to answer another one, pick which one you want to answer, then go for it. You might even start liking to answer questions.
@Richard Wheeler: #78
I can dream, can’t I?
@Richard Wheeler: #78
obama bans military from reading about NSA surveillance. The world can read about it, but obama doesn’t want the troops to read about it. As a Marine officer, would you order those under you not to read about it? If so, why? Do you think the troops might start wondering why their king-and-chief doesn’t want them to read about it? Will banning reading about Benghazi be next, or has that already been ordered, but not known yet?
@ilovebeeswarzone: #82
Have you turned liberal? That sounds like what a liberal would say. Is he converting you?
@Ditto: #83
Is he a Marine. I’m not saying I don’t think he is. I just find it hard to believe that a Marine would have the attitude that Richard does.
If they don’t, they can call the NSA and get all of the information they need.