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.
WHEN HITLER STARTED TO ENROLL
he started by the young schools student it look very good to give them a discipline to behave on, AND MANY FAVORS CAME RANDOMLY,
THE PARENTS LIKED IT, until he ask the young to TELL on their family,allegiance,
the young has been indoctrinated to think HITLER AS A SUPREME BEING AND MOST POWERFUL,
THEY TOOK HIM AS A GOD ON EARTH AND WHERE DRILLED TO OBEY ANY COMMAND,
They where call the HITLER YOUTH WITH ALPHABET LETTERS ADDED AS A PRESTIGE OF POWER,
than the JEWS where targeted AND GIVE AWAY BY THE YOUTH,
HITLER was influence by a MAN CALL A MULTI, A MUSLIM HEAD OF HIS COMMUNITY,
WHO HATED THE JEWS AND SWORE TO DESTROY THEM STILL TODAY,, SO HE BECAME TOP COUNSELOR OF HITLER,
AND THE DEGENERATE MIND OF HITLER’S ORDERS BEGAN TO BE PUT INTO ACTION,
BY HIS MILITARY WHO OBEYED TOTALLY HIS MINUTES WISHES , THE GATHERING OF THE JEWS
TO BRING THEM IN CAMPS, BUT SOME WHERE FUMIGATED AND DIE ON THE TRAIN,
TODAY WE SEE MUSLIM TEACHING THE YOUTH SINCE 3 YEARS INDOCTRINATING THEM,
HAVING DONE 3 YEARS WITHOUT BEING EXPOSED,
THIS AFTER MANY PARENTS NOTIFIED THE SGHOOL,
SHOULD GIVE YOU A DEJA VUE FEELING, IF YOU HAVE LEARNED YOUR HISTORY,
BUT THIS TIME , THE FOCUS IS ON THE CHRISTIANS ELIMINATION OF RIGHTS,
SNEAKING SLOWLY INTO THE SYSTEM, EVEN ON THE WAR-ZONE, WE HEAR THAT MONSTER SHOWING HIS HORNS ON THE MILITARY, USING THE ATHEISM MOVEMENT WHO LIKE TO OBLIGE FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT, TO COVER UP,
SO TO HIDE THE MUSLIMS INFLUENCE ON THE LEADERSHIP PLAYING BLIND,
WHICH HELP HIS AGENDA.
@Tom: #85
FactCheck and Snopes are known liberal web sites. Can you link to any other such stories?
Let’s read obama’s own words AGAIN. “We gotta have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded (as the military).” I just noticed one word I hadn’t noticed before: NATIONAL. The OBAMA FORCE will be used for NATIONAL SECURITY only. Please explain how the organizations you mentioned will help our NATIONAL SECURITY, and why will they have to be, “…just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded?” What do you say the words “powerful” and “strong” mean. Will the OBAMA FORCE be a powerful and strong version of the Peace Corps.
Why did obama know how to pronounce, “Peace Corps”, but not, “Navy Corpsman”?
@Richard Wheeler: #86
The citizens of a lot of countries wish they hadn’t said such things about their leader a long time ago.
@another vet:
I’m afraid I disagree with your premise. He may have chosen his words poorly when he said “security force”, but he clearly wasn’t speaking about an armed security force or promising one. Look at the rest of the paragraph that follows. It’s all about volunteering and service. Does any of that sound like an armed security force? It’s clear he’s still talking about a domestic service group just as “well-funded” as the peace corp. People like Ditto and Smorg claim he’s talking about a group as “well-funded” as the US military. That strains all credulity. Our military budget is north of $600B. Do you really think Obama is going to campaign on spending more than $600B on this alleged shady venture? The one he never mentions again. Ever. So what is more likely, a poor choice of words in one sentence; or one sentence that articulates a true intention, despite the fact it’s completely unconnected from the rest of his speech, it was never mentioned again, and never acted upon. The truth is that certain people take one sentence, knowingly lift it out of its context, and run with it. And that is dishonest to the core.
@Smorgasbord:
Lord. So you are unaware of the concept that national security cannot be solely attained through force? You’ve never heard of diplomacy? You don’t know what the State Department is there for perhaps? Do you have any clue how the Peace Corp fits into his remarks? Finally, you think Obama came up with these notions? Perhaps you need a remedial education on foreign policy before attempting to condescendingly explain things to others that you can’t even grasp. http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2009/04/30/us-foreign-policy-built-defense-diplomacy-and-development
@Tom: #103
Yet, you never condemn the propaganda media for doing the EXACT SAME THING, or when they edit what someone says to fit their agenda, like they did with George Zimmerman.
@Smorgasbord:
You find me an example of where someone in the the media cut one sentence from a speech about GZ and spun it to mean something that it clearly didn’t, and I will agree that that person is being as dishonest as you are.
@Tom: This was his entire statement:
I agree he was talking bout national service, but the words powerful, strong, national security, and force are normally associated with the military not a domestic service group. National security is not the responsibility of any of the groups mentioned in his speech. If Factcheck had bothered to read the mission statements of those organizations, they would have known that and come up with a different excuse like he was talking about a civilian national security force that was just as well funded as one of the previously mentioned organizations not one that was just as strong, powerful, and well funded as the military. Since he never requested (to the best of my knowledge) funding for the organization, I lean toward this being wishful thinking that came out in a speech where he was rambling on trying to stir the crowd.
@Tom: #106
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/02/nbc-launches-internal-probe-over-edited-11-call-in-trayvon-martin-shooting/
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/07/26/ABC-s-Misleading-Edit-of-Juror-B29
I can forgive you for your lack of information on this subject, and the many other times such things have happened. You have to go to Fox News, Breitbart, The Drudge Report, WND, The Blaze, or other conservative news media to read or hear about what is actually going on in MY world.
In MY world, I want the truth, even if it disagrees with what I want the truth to be. In My world, when I find out about a republican doing something they shouldn’t, I will condemn them, and most of the republicans in congress will too. How many times has a democrat done something they shouldn’t, and ANY democrat condemned them? Not very often, and only if that democrat thinks that if they side with the offending democrat, they themselves might not get reelected. You liberals are always there to defend each other, no matter what.
A typical liberal statement that makes me dishonest even when I show you how the propaganda media edits stories.
@Smorgasbord: Good morning Smorg Re your questions I’m going to send you to Tom’s excellent responses in 103 and 104,
Tom is younger,smarter and certainly better able to articulate the clear cut response to your queries.
Re my service Active duty M.C. Officer 66-69. served RVN 11/67-11/68 awarded Navy Comm. Medal with combat “V”. Aye has my DD-214. Nuf said.
Suggest if you spend ALL your time with Fox,Drudge,Breitbart,WND etc “your world” will be as slanted as those on the far left with Daily Kos etc.
Further warning Late night listening could leave you babbling in tongues and continually referencing Hitler like a certain insect who’ll go unnamed.lol
WHO can pretend to explain and change WORDS INTO OTHER WORDS,
WITH A : HE MIGHT HAVE MEANT TO SAY,
NO HE SAID PRECISELY THOSE WORDS, AS CITED BY MANY HERE EXACTLY TO MEAN WHAT THE PEOPLE READ AND UNDERSTOOD,
YOU GUYS try to cover his mistakes, but this time you have failed miserably,
did he also say, the word : phony, yes he did, maybe he meant you TOM AND RICHARD both are phony,
THEN HE WOULD BE RIGHT,
Sadly I had the displeasure of listening to Barry’s comments as he was speaking. I was watching his face, his motions. Anyone that thinks for one second Barry didn’t mean an armed force, under his control only, is truely delusional. Apparently over 830,000 people in Commiefornia though so also in 2012 as they bought firearms. I do know that those sales were not to unique individuals, some may have purchased more that once, I know I did. But still a significant number for a leftist state.
@UpChuck.Liberals: Sounds like the “armed force” may be paranoid “gun collectors” like yourself, worrying about a non existent BHO personal security force. Maybe the peaceful citizenry, like myself, should be concerned about you. Just sayin.
Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler: #111
Why do you keep referring to me being a night owl? I have mentioned many times that I am, and when I retired, I told myself I wasn’t going to set any more alarm clocks unless I have to. I live in an apartment building, and getting on the Internet is one thing I can do without making any noise to bother my neighbors, so I do it at night and usually into the morning, since I am going to be up anyway.
@UpChuck.Liberals: #113
The propaganda media isn’t reporting it, but most places that have a mass shooting have a surge in gun purchases. I find it hard to believe that if the most devout gun control believer has neighbors attacked or killed, that they wouldn’t even CONSIDER buying a gun.
I did a little more research on this. Let’s have a quick review of English Comp 101 and what the purpose of a paragraph is. It’s to convey a single thought. The link below contains the transcript of the speech Obama was supposed to give. Nowhere in there is there a reference to a civilian national security force. It was done off teleprompter. That means it was Factcheck.org, not the WH, who chose to divide that portion of the speech up the way they published it. The adjectives used in the sentence about the security force fit more with the thought of the military in the preceding sentence (and paragraph for that matter) than Americorps or any of the other organizations referenced. Keeping that in mind, the sentence about the military and the security force should have been in the same paragraph. Factcheck.org however took it upon themselves to split the paragraph between those two sentences in order to “prove” their point. It changed the context of what was said. Go back and reread the speech the way they wrote it and then reread it after restructuring the paragraphs to where the sentences about the military and civilian security force are in the same paragraph. It makes a lot more sense and isn’t as choppy because because there is no paragraph break in mid thought.
Factcheck.org structured that portion of the speech to fit their narrative.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_9765136
@Richard Wheeler: No Richard, you just need to work with facts and not the Ignorance and Emotions that are the tools of the left. So here are some FACTS, from CBS yet. “Yet despite the rise in gun sales in California, there has not been a corresponding rise in gun deaths or gun injuries. Hospitalizations for gun injuries have actually dropped nearly 28 percent and gun deaths by 15 percent.” And here’s something the Leftist never include, THE SOURCE . What I’m seeing is that there is much more peace with more weapons in the hands of lawful citizens. Here is one more little fun FACT from the CDOJ, Hispanics commit 150% MORE homicides than Blacks. Sadly they didn’t break it out of they were legal or illegals. I’d bet on the latter. Personally I prefer to be a peaceful armed citizen than an unarmed subject. Peace through superior firepower.
@UpChuck.Liberals: Sorry the source got deleted from the post. CBS News dot com Direct link provided upon requrest.
Also Hispanics are more populous than blacks in the USA, UCL.
Most often crime numbers are based by a percent per 100,000 of population instead of raw numbers.
The 2012 rates/100,000:
As has been noted in the news recently; if the USA lost all their blacks tomorrow, their homicide rate (per 100,000 population) would be in line with most of the most peaceable parts of Europe such as Sweden or Belgium.
WE KEPT TELLING THE BLACK WOMAN ,
TO NOT ABORT THESES LAST YEARS,
BUT THE PROPAGANDA FROM THE ADMINISTRATION WAS TOO STRONG
AND THEY DID GO FOR ABORTION,
THIS , PLUS THE KILLING BY THEIR OWN YOUNG
WONT HELP THEM RETAKE THEIR NUMBER TWO, ADDING THE MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS FROM 150 FOREIGN COUNTRIES IS NOT GOOD FOR THEM EITHER,,
THEY MUST CLOSE THE BORDERS AND STOP THE FLOW OF ILLEGALS NOW
YESTERDAY, BUT OBAMA IS NOT FOR THEM, HE WAS FOR VOTES BY ILLEGALS,
Nan G
you know, I was thinking that what they call a danger and close the EMBASSIES of all the MIDDLE EAST
OR ALMOST ALL INCLUDING ISRAEL,
would it be because the time has come for ISRAEL TO NEUTRALIZE THE IRAN NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES,
JUST A WEIRD FEELING CAME TO MIND.
@another vet: #117
I’m willing to bet that the government schools aren’t teaching their students to “research” anything, since obama told them not to use electronic devices to get their information.
@another vet: A wonderful speech filled with hope and inspired ideas. I’d recommend all to read it. Thanks A.V.
@Richard Wheeler: Think I should run for office?
@Smorgasbord: They probably aren’t very good at using the library either. Rather than finding out the truth for themselves, Obama would rather have everybody take his word for it. As seen at FA, there are people who are very content with that.
@another vet, no need to parse the pre written speech and guess which paragraph the added line was intended to append. You can hear it first hand via the speech… the entire related paragraph beginning at 15:58 in the speech. The intent for context is obvious and was delivered with emphasis.
It was an added line, not included in the pre written text, likely inserted for applause and effect. There weren’t many of those type lines in this speech. And Obama was even gauging what lines were getting the applause wrong. Definitely not one of his better TOTUS reading days.
The sentence in question was a run on comment added right behind: “And we’ll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.” The rest of the paragraphs, preceding and following, were delivered as written.
It was relating to a paragraph filled with mentions of volunteer service via neighborhood energy and environmental clean up groups, veterans helping veterans and families, and increasing the US foreign diplomatic services by opening/reopening consulates and expanding Peace Corps numbers. National security has never been confined to military strategies alone. It also involves diplomatic strategies, intelligence for prevention, and civil disaster planning for preparedness in the event of an attack. All prongs are part of an effective national security.
It has nothing to do with an armed civilian forced filled with minions begging to do Obama’s bidding. Certainly if it were about some nefarious civilian force that worshipped Obama, he and the 111th Congress would have attempted to create and fund such a body while they held maximum power. As it was, they refused to fund even his wanted increase in Peace Corps etal during that time.
We already have an “armed civilian force”… it’s called citizens with RKBA Constitutional rights. No need to create such an animal. It’s loyalties? I suspect it’s not to God, country or any commander in chief. Looks more like an every man for himself attitude these days.
@another vet: #126
It wouldn’t surprise me if the liberals who do think that obama is trying to turn the USA into a non-free country, think they will get a high position in the new government.
@MataHarley: He made reference to the security force immediately after the reference to the military not the Peace Corps or diplomacy. It didn’t sound like a break in thought to me but rather like he was building on what he had just said. In other words, if I would have written down what he said, both sentences would have included in same paragraph and not split up the way Factcheck did. In addition, something called a national security force is more in line with the military than the Peace Corps or diplomacy. If the president elect was in fact referring to the Peace Corps, then he obviously didn’t what its mission is. Either way, it seemed quite clear the security force was to be a new organization.
Like I said previously, there is no civilian national security force nor was funding ever requested for one so in my mind he was babbling and in the process didn’t articulate his point well enough. Had he have stuck to his prepared script, this issue never would have been an issue.
Obama using a executive order to BAN GUNS? dont put it past him he is a Dictator and a despots he has already commited too many impeachible offensises to could
@another vet, yup… I think Obama was having a very bad TOTUS day, and was looking for some of the enthusiastic applause lines. He never does well off script. And this particular day, if you listen to his speech delivery en toto, he didn’t even do well *on* the teleprompter.
I’d agree that his choice of a throw in line wasn’t worded well. But I don’t see it as his attempt to change the mission of traditionally diplomatic organizations. The theme of his speech, however badly written and delivered, was to encourage community volunteers. Sort of the mainstay of a “community organizer” by trade, yes? LOL
@another vet: #129
It’s possible he was feeling the people out to see if he could get them to go along with the idea. I can’t imagine it just popped into his head at that moment. It sounded like it had been rehearsed so that if the mood was right, he could add it in.
@SPURWING PLOVER: #130
An executive order only applies to federal employees, not civilians, unless the civilians let it apply to them.
If your state has a militia, join it. If it doesn’t, ask your politicians to form one. The Constitution says that states can have a militia, and that they can be armed.
Smorgasbord
hi,
do we know how many STATES have a MILITIA ARMED
AND IN READY MODE, IF A TERRORIST LOCAL ATTACK IS DONE,
I AM SUSPICIOUS THAT THE SENTENCE OF HAVING A CIVILIAN ARMY FOR HIM’AND AS STRONG AS THE MILITARY CAME IN THAT SPEECH,
IT SEEM TO ME IT WAS SAID SOME PREVIOUS TIME,
I see it far down back,
@Richard Wheeler:
RW, I’ve seen this statement before. Why does ‘Aye’ have your DD-214? Who is ‘Aye” to have your DD-214? Should I send him mine? Is this a new thing, that vets are supposed to send someone a copy of their DD-214? First of all, if someone has to see a ‘copy of my DD-214’ to believe me when I speak of my military service, then he’s not someone that I would want to see my DD-214.
Also:
what is your hangup with persons that stay up late? As Smorg says, I’m retired, I spend my days and nights as I want to, I answer to no damn alarm clock. Late nights are the most peaceful time of the day. You should try it. Quit being a slave to an alarm clock.
@UpChuck.Liberals: Upchuck, what you said is no surprise. Where gun ownership is prevalent, crimes will be less. Only in places, Chicago, DC, etc where they are not easy or legal to acquire do the criminals have the advantage. It is common knowledge that few people enter other persons homes if they can be fairly confident they will meet up with a Semi Auto Pistol or Shotgun. Do you think those ‘illegal’ Hispanics are concerned about whether the guns they are committing crimes with are legally owned by themselves, or not? I wouldn’t think so.
@Redteam: That RW: Further warning Late night listening, jumped out at me, too.
I’ve been retired for years and love the quiet of late night.
Now that hubby is retired as well we both live ”off the clock,” completely.
We sleep when we’re tired and eat when we’re hungry…..very zen.
@another vet: AV, I agree with you, Obama was talking about a new armed civilian security force, funded as well as the US military. He said it, it was not ambiguous. I don’t understand those trying to impute a different ‘meaning’ to what he said. If they are Obama supporters, then support him and his wild grandiose schemes. It has never been introduced in Congress because then the ‘true’ intent of what he was dreaming of would be known.
@Smorgasbord: Given his penchant for control and big government, he probably had the thought in his mind but I don’t think it amounted to much more than wishful thinking. If it did, he would have requested it in one of his budget proposals, especially when the 110th Congress was in session since the Party had overwhelming control of both Houses. It most likely came out in this speech because he was trying to sound like JFK. Look at how many different takes there are on this thread as to what he was saying. That means he didn’t get his message across very well, whatever it was supposed to be. He tried to play JFK and ended up falling flat on his teleprompter.
@Nan G: yep, just as my wife and I do, we were up til 2:40 last night, got up at 12:20 this afternoon. The good life.
@Nan G: The stats from the CDOJ were raw numbers. I simply found it interesting that here in Commiefornia, with a huge illegal Latino population that even then the percentage would be so dramatic. I actually rounded down to a number I could remember.
@Redteam: ‘Congress??? I don’t need no stinkin’ Congress.’ As he has been so apt at demonstrating.
@Richard Wheeler: Hey, RW, I just re-read Aye’s bio-info under “Authors” of the blog. He does not mention that he had any military service of his own and he doesn’t mention that he has a copy of your DD-214. He must not consider that a ‘material fact’ to reveal. You think? Maybe you just sent him a copy so he knows what a DD-214 is. Tell us the story on how that came about.
@UpChuck.Liberals: And he has also demonstrated that he don’t need no ‘stinking constitution’ either, repeatedly with his illegal Executive Orders. As everyone, except Dimocrats, seem to understand, an Executive Order is to be issued to direct the Executive branch on how to execute laws that Congress has passed, not to bypass Congress.
Their authority normally derived from the Constitution: “Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” ” clearly indicate they are for the purpose to see that Laws, passed by Congress, are faithfully executed. Not to ‘make it up as he goes along’.
The Executive Branch has to find ways to work around a Congress that can’t seem to get it together to do anything. The House’s last act before taking off on recess was to hold their 40th totally pointless vote to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act.
I suppose with these guys on vacation we might at least hope to save a few bucks on the Capitol building’s electric bill.
@another vet:
The content of a Presidential speech is never set in stone and can be changed even as the president is giving the speech by his writers or himself. Perhaps Obama screwed up and went off script, perhaps he rewrote what he was going to say on the fly, or it may have been a Freudian slip. The point is not the speech Obama was supposed to give, but the actual speech that he did give. While Obama does have a tendency to go off script, we have to accept that he means what he says unless there is an admission to the contrary. With this narcissistic and president who expands his powers far beyond Constitutional limitations, openly declares that if Congress wont act on an issue he will unilaterally, and who has a definite aversion to admitting that he can be wrong, we must consider that he wants to do precisely what he says he wants to do.
@Redteam:
If Curt requests that I “prove” my service, I will provide absolute, unequivocal proof personally to him alone. As for our local Trolls, they can go suck eggs.
@Greg:
The Executive Branch is still required to operate within the limits of Constitutional law, which is something democrats cannot stand on their march to socialist dystopia.
@Redteam: I have exchanged e-mails with authors Mata and Aye off line .When some clown continued to question my service I scanned my DD-214 to Aye which he confirmed. No big deal.
Ditto I asked about your service. Don’t really care if you don’t want to talk about it. Would think you’d be proud to do so.
@Greg: @Greg:
So Greg, you don’t understand how the constitutional republic was designed to operate? The design was so that it is ‘hard’ to get new legislation passed. The fewer laws, the better. They did not intend for the presidency to be a dictatorship, as Obama is trying to make it. The intent was that the states would control what the people did, not the Federal government. But then, I don’t expect you to understand how it’s supposed to work, if you did, you couldn’t support a dictatorship.
@Ditto: Ditto:
Why would you do that? and why would he do that?