Posted by DrJohn on 29 July, 2013 at 6:19 am. 245 comments already!


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.

Gimme what you got

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.