First “Post-Racial” President Weighs in One Mo’ Time on Upcoming Ferguson Verdict

Ferguson MO8202014As I sit here, writing today’s blog, America waits on “the other shoe to drop. Obama, last Thursday, dropped the “Amnesty Shoe”, now we’re waiting on the “Race-Baiting Shoe”.

Obama prepared us for it, yesterday morning.

Foxnews.com reports that

President Obama on Sunday called for calm after the announcement of the pending grand jury decision in Ferguson, Mo., and argued that race relations in the U.S. have significantly improved in the past 10 years.

“My own experience tells me race relations continue to improve,” Obama said on ABC’s “This Week,” in an interview taped last week. “There’s no way to say race relations are worse than 20, 50 years ago.”

The much-anticipated announcement — whether a white police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black man, will be indicted in connection with the incident — is now not expected until at least Monday.

The days following the Aug. 9 incident were marked by mass protests and a strong police response. And officials are preparing for a similar situation if Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson in not indicted and brought to trial.

“First and foremost, keep protests peaceful,” Obama told ABC. “This is a country that allows everybody to express their views, allows them to peacefully assemble, to protest actions that they think are unjust, but using any event as an excuse for violence is contrary to rule of law and contrary to who we are.”

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon on Monday declared a state of emergency in anticipation of problems following the announcement.

The FBI has sent nearly 100 additional agents to Ferguson to help law enforcement agencies, according to a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the FBI plans.

Crews this weekend erected barricades around the Clayton, Mo., judicial center where the grand jury has been considering whether to indict Wilson.

Tensions have been mounting in Ferguson and elsewhere in the St. Louis area in recent days, with many speculating that the grand jury’s decision would be announced on Sunday.

Police arrested three protesters on Friday night — the third straight night of unrest in Ferguson.

Barricades also have been erected in Ferguson where police had set up a makeshift command center in the immediate aftermath of Brown’s death.

Obama also said the country needs to do a better job training law enforcement officials and seemed to make a reference to Trayvon Martin.

He said law enforcement needs to “distinguish between a gang banger and a kid who just happens to be wearing a hoodie but otherwise is a good kid and not doing anything wrong.”

Martin was shot and killed on the night of Feb. 26, 2012 by Florida neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman.

The unarmed teen, who was wearing a hoodie, and 28-year-old Zimmerman got into a fatal altercation. Zimmerman was acquitted on manslaughter and murder charges.

Obama would not say whether he will go to Ferguson after the announcement and declined to compare the situation to the 1965 civil rights march in Selma, Ala.

Point of Order, Mr. President.  About this RAAACIIISM Thingy…for 20 years you sat under the former American Black Muslim Rev. Jeremiah Wright, at the Trinity Church of Christ, a “Black Liberation Theology” Church.

What is “Black Liberation Theology”? I’m glad you asked.

The chief architect of black liberation theology was James Cone, author of Black Theology and Black Power. One of the tasks of this movement, according to Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of blacks who have long been victimized by white oppressors. According to black liberation theology, the inherent racism of white people precludes them from being able to recognize the humanity of nonwhites; moreover, their white supremacist orientation allegedly results in the establishment of a “white theology” that is irrevocably disconnected from the black experience. Consequently, liberation theologians contend that blacks need their own, race-specific theology to affirm their identity and their worth.

“What we need,” says Cone, “is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” Observing that America was founded for white people, Cone calls for “the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” He advocates the use of Marxism as a tool of social analysis to help Christians to see “how things really are.”

Another prominent exponent of black liberation theology is the Ivy League professor Cornel West, who calls for “a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers” — a dialogue that centers on the possibility of “mutually arrived-at political action.”

In the past, Obama has credited a sermon of Mr. Wright’s, “The Audacity of Hope,” with drawing him to what he identified back in 2008 as, “Christianity”.

On Page 293 of his first book,  “Dreams for My Father,” Obama recounts Wright’s “The Audacity of Hope” sermon.

Obama quotes this passage:

It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That’s the world! On which hope sits!

In fact, Wright had so influenced the young Illinois Senator that Obama made the phrase “The Audacity of Hope” the title of his second book.

However, right before he announced his presidential campaign, Obama started to put distance between himself and his pastor of 20 years, cancelling plans for him to deliver the convocation prayer at the campaign’s formal announcement.

The president has been physically distancing himself from Rev. Wright ever since.

Can you say hypocrisy, boys and girls? Sure you can.

I have been thinking about Michael Brown and what his childhood might have been like, especially after seeing the way his parents have reacted to his death, ranging from the scuffle his Mudear got in over the selling of t-shirts, to both of his parents wishing to appear before the United Nations.

And then, I flash on that video of the young thug that Michael Brown had become, stealing those cigarillos from that local convenience store, in order to make blunts, and him roughing up that much smaller shop owner.

I have never been able to stomach mistreatment of children. I know it is because of my upbringing, in a stable Christian home. Nowadays, that familial situation, which my generation was so familiar with, is becoming more and more scarce. In fact, it’s on the Obama’ Administration’s Hit List. You see, Liberals, Progressives, socialists, Alinskyites, worshipers of Molech, or whatever you want to call these yahoos, , want the “gub’mit”, good ol’ Uncle Sugar, to raise , educate, and pay for (with OUR tax money) their “chirren”.

Oh…they also want US to pay for the killing of their “inconvenient” babies, as well.

These “parents”, if they are not “Pookies”, sitting around on the couch, drinking Purple “drank” and smoking Blunts all day, while waiting on their “benefits”, are middle-class, self-absorbed , materialistic heathens, who are 30 year old adolescents, caring more about their own careers and social lives, than they are about leading a child “in the way in which they should go”.

The children, in both instances, are left to fend for themselves, and grow up thinking that the behavior they see on television and at home, is the behavior of every adult in America.

And, that is how that young man wound up strong-arming that shop owner and later, assaulting that police officer, an act for which he lost his life.

In the church I grew up in, in one of the Sunday School classrooms, was a painting of Jesus, seated, with a child on his lap, surrounded by little children, smiling and talking to them.

As a child growing up, I thought to myself, how great that must have to been to have Him for a friend.

Then, as I became older, I realized that I already did.

It breaks my heart that the young thug, Michael Brown, who is now being made a meal of by Race-Baiting Vultures, wase not properly introduced to such a Friend.

He would have made all the difference in his young life.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama’s New Bolsheviks: His Vanguard of “Radical Change” (A KJ Op Ed)

AFBrancoConsequences111714Back in the 1990s, I worked in the Education/Media Services Department, of one of the largest hospitals in America. The department was overseen by an older lady, who had an educational doctorate. This lady was full of energy, was very sweet, and very smart. However, she became notorious for what my manager labeled “crisis management”. Meaning, that when the president of the hospital wanted her to undertake a major project and wanted a report of her plans before she began, she would wait until the last cotton picking minute to get her act together and her report as well, sending the whole department into a frenzy which was reminiscent of the chase scene at the end of The Benny Hill Show.

I remembered that story, as I was trying to get a handle on United States President Barack Hussein Obama’s management style. Obama, as we all know, has a management style that is reactive, instead of being proactive. His management of our nation’s resources leaves a lot to be desired. And, I am being very kind when I say that.

Perhaps there is a purpose in Obama’s slapdash method of handling his job duties.

We have all come to recognize that Obama does not handle criticism of his job performance very well. Let’s face it, Obama’s ego is as big as the great outdoors. And, of course, when you are a super genius such as Barack Hussein Obama, you don’t have to listen to peons like you and me, anyway.

The thread that ties together the story which I began today’s blog with and Barack Hussein Obama’s management style, is the fact that when you practice crisis management, more times than not, you do it in the fervent hope that by doing such, no one can question your management style until everything is said and done. In other words, until it is too late to do anything about it.

Obama, while practicing this management style, hopes to circumvent the Constitution of the United States, by portraying the “plight” of people who have trespassed into our country as an “emergency humanitarian situation”. If news had not leaked out last week that Obama was going to grant Amnesty by Executive Order, he probably would have just come on television this Friday and explained his whole brilliant plan to all of us. And, by the time we finished watching his pronouncement slack-jawed, in his mind anyway, it would have been too late for us to do anything about it.

When you have a crisis manager such as Obama, it is a very natural reaction for them not to take criticism well, and for them to be surprised when somebody bucks them on what they believe is a brilliant idea and a brilliant game plan.

Hence, the Presidential Temper Tantrums that Scooter throws every time somebody tells him “NO”.

However, in our present situation in America, I believe that this may be more than the simple case of a crisis manager’s plans being thwarted.

When you have an orderly structure already in place, such as our System of Checks and Balances, which was set up to provide a mechanism which protects our sovereign nation from usurpation of our Constitution, and provided for us in the founding of this country by our forefathers, it is not easily circumvented.

It hit me yesterday, after I wrote a blog about Obama’ s meeting with the protest leaders who are presently chomping at the bit to write it in Ferguson Missouri over the shooting of the young thug, Michael Brown.

What Obama was running for president, he promised to “radically change” the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave into a vision which he had for America. I believe that not only this upcoming amnesty on Friday, but the racial upheaval in Ferguson and across the country, which Obama’s irresponsible use of the rhetoric of race and class warfare has directly caused, as well, are both political tools, which he wishes to use as a Vanguard for his own revolution, whose sole purpose is to usher in the “radical change” which he spoke of all those years ago.

Just as was the case in the Russian Revolution, any “Democratic Socialist” nation we see around our Modern World, went through a course-altering revolution, whether through a violent overthrow of the Government or through a “radical change” in the political ideology of their nation and the way that their populace voted in the subsequent election.

I firmly believe that the mission of Barack Hussein Obama, from the moment he became President of United States to this very day, has been exactly what he said it was during his first presidential campaign: to “radically change” our nation into something that every patriotic American will no longer recognize.

With citizenship and voting rights granted to illegal aliens and with Obama’s covert and overt support of these perpetually-grieved protesters, fueled by racial animus, Obama has created his own version of Lenin’s Bolsheviks.

That is why the election earlier this month was so very important. No matter what the puppets of the Obama Administration, the Main Street Media proclaims,  the reason that Americans elected Republicans to both Houses of Congress was not to work with Barack Hussein Obama, but to oppose him at every turn.

America’s survival as a free nation depends on it.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Riot Preparation For the Verdict in Ferguson. Obama Secretly Meets with Ferguson “Protestors”.

Ferguson1Missouri State Authorities are getting their assets in place as the decision by the Grand Jury, who are deliberating, after hearing the evidence for or against indictment in the case of the shooting of Ferguson , Missouri young thug, Michael Brown, by Police Office Darren Wilson looms nigh.

The New York Times reports that

Since August, a disparate array of demonstrators — some from longstanding organizations, others from new groups with names like Hands Up United and Lost Voices — has been drawn here to protest not just the shooting of Mr. Brown, but also the broader issues of racial profiling and police conduct.

Now, with the grand jury’s decision expected in the coming days, the groups are preparing with intricate precision to protest the no-indictment vote most consider inevitable. Organizers are outlining “rules of engagement” for dealing with the police, circulating long lists of equipment, including bandages and shatterproof goggles, and establishing “safe spaces” where protesters can escape the cold — or the tear gas.

Graphic | What Happened in Ferguson?Why did the police shoot an unarmed black teenager in a St. Louis suburb, and what has unfolded since then? Here’s what you need to know about the situation in Missouri.

Yet the most important part of the planning may also be the hardest: how to prevent demonstrations from turning violent. Organizers say they want their efforts here to blossom into a lasting, national movement. So they say they hope for the protests to be forceful, loud and unrelenting, but without the looting or arson that could undermine their message. But they also know that some among the ranks may be more volatile and harder to control.

“We’ve come to the conclusion that we really don’t want violence,” said one organizer with Lost Voices, who goes by the name Bud Cuzz. “We want to fix this. We still want to fight to make the laws change. We still want to raise awareness. But we don’t want the city to turn upside down.”

Montague Simmons, a leader of theOrganization for Black Struggle, said there was a growing circle of demonstrators with “a clear message about what we are about and what kind of behavior we are looking for.” Yet beyond their carefully orchestrated plans for a series of shows of protest and civil disobedience, leaders here acknowledge that there are disagreements about what form of response is fitting and whether militant acts might spill over into violence.

At least one group has said on Twitter that it was offering a reward for information on the whereabouts of the officer, Darren Wilson, and, at another point, that it was “restocking on 7.62 & 9mm ammo.” Law enforcement authorities said they would not discuss individual groups, but that they were “constantly looking,” at several groups, according to Brian Schellman of the St. Louis County Police, “trying to separate the rhetoric from the actual threats.”

Immediately after Mr. Brown’s death on Aug. 9, protests began. For days, people marched and chanted along West Florissant Avenue, not far from where the shooting took place and, for brief periods, the protests grew violent. Stores were looted, and the police said demonstrators threw gasoline bombs and tried to set fires. The police used tear gas and rubber bullets. Protesters said the police response was an overreaction to just a few in the otherwise peaceful crowd.

Though the confrontations quieted, the demonstrations have continued nearly nightly since. About 50 organizations, including Mr. Simmons’s, have joined forces in a “Don’t Shoot Coalition,” and the level of planning is intense.

And what is the First Black President of the United States of America doing about this incendiary situatio0n?

Why, Barack Hussein Obama is throwing kerosene on it, of course.

Jim Hoft at gatewaypundit.com reported yesterday that,

President Obama met with Ferguson protest leaders on November 5th, the day after the midterm elections. The meeting was not on his daily schedule. He was concerned that the protesters “stay on course.”

What does that mean?

And why is the president meeting with the violent Mike Brown protesters before a verdict is reached in the court case?

The Ferguson protesters have looted over 100 businesses in the St. Louis area.

The New York Times hid this in the 21st paragraph of their report:

But leaders here say that is the nature of a movement that has taken place, in part, on social media and that does not match an earlier-era protest structure where a single, outspoken leader might have led the way. “This is not your momma’s civil rights movement,” said Ashley Yates, a leader of Millennial Activists United. “This is a movement where you have several difference voices, different people. The person in charge is really — the people. But the message from everyone is the same: Stop killing us.”

At times, there has been a split between national civil rights leaders and the younger leaders on the ground here, who see their efforts as more immediate, less passive than an older generation’s. But some here said relations have improved in recent weeks.

Some of the national leaders met with President Obama on Nov. 5 for a gathering that included a conversation about Ferguson.

According to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has appeared frequently in St. Louis with the Brown family and delivered a speech at Mr. Brown’s funeral, Mr. Obama “was concerned about Ferguson staying on course in terms of pursuing what it was that he knew we were advocating. He said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.”

Obama wants the protesters to stay on course?

Unbelievable.

I have watching in fascination…and disgust…as the situation in Ferguson, Missouri has devolved into some sort of bizarre rush to judgement, for the purpose of some kind of strange racial reparation.

As the evidence against Michael Brown makes its way into the harsh light of day, the professional race-baiters, who have besieged the tiny town of Ferguson, and their supporting Liberal Pundits and sycophants on the World Wide Web, have continued their chorus of “innocence due to perpetual victimhood”, in the case of Michael Brown, proving that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

You see, boys and girls, at this point in the Liberal fairy tale narrative of “Mike the Gentle Giant”, with all of the blood-thirsty Liberal Trolls, who have descended upon the town of Ferguson, publicly writhing in anticipation of a presumed guilty verdict in the trial of Officer Darren Vinson, anything less than a guilty verdict will not satisfy their blood lust.

Of course, Obama will not tell the terminally aggrieved to stand down.

Since he took office, Obama has combined the political philosophies of Marx and Alinsky, and used them to turn a rhetorical political mixture of the rhetoric of Class Warfare and “perceived racial discrimination”, fueled by racial animus, into a political weapon, a skill which he learned during his time as a community organizer in Chicago.

That is why President Barack Hussein Obama sent Attorney General Eric Holder down to Ferguson. Holder went there to make sure that Officer Vinson was indicted in the “wrongful death” of “Gentle Giant” Michael Brown.

Even if the shooting of the 6’4″, 290 lb. thieving, store owner-bullying, dope-smoking, 18 year-old thug was justified.

Decades ago, when the Ku Klux Klan rode through the nation, innocent black men were hung from the nearest tree, simply because of the color of their skin.

Today, in 2014, it appears that those roles have been reversed.

And, it has been sanctioned by Presidential Decree.

President Barack Hussein Obama, who swore an oath, at least twice, to defend this nation, seems determined to tear it apart.

Two wrongs do not make a right…”civil” or otherwise.

Until He Comes,

KJ

“Obamanomics”: The Rich Get Richer. Middle and Lower Class Suffer.

ObamaTransparentBranco852014We can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.- Barack Hussein Obama

When Barack Hussein Obama first ran for the Presidency of the United States in 2008, he claimed that his economic policies would “foster economic growth from the bottom up and not just from the top down.” Obama promised to put in place “an immediate rescue plan for the middle class” and would end the “tired, worn-out, trickle-down ideologies we’ve been seeing for so many years.”

Obama got everything that he wanted in his first two years in the White House, when Democrats had solid control of Congress — a massive stimulus, auto industry bailouts, temporary middle class tax cuts, vast new regulations on businesses and ObamaCare.

But,  all of his brilliant Socialist Economic  Policies produced the exact opposite of what he’d promised.

So, he pounded his them of “Class Warfare” even harder.

So much so that, during his Re-election Campaign in 2012, President Barack Hussein Obama said,

This country doesn’t just succeed when just a few are doing well at the top. It succeeds when the middle class gets bigger. Our economy doesn’t grow from the top down — it grows from the middle out. We don’t believe that anybody is entitled to success in this country,” said Obama. “But we do believe in opportunity. We believe in a country where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded, and everybody is getting a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share and everybody is playing by the same rules.

On July 24, 2013, Newly-Re-elected President Obama began a series of Stump Speeches titled, “Growing the Economy From the Middle Class Out”.  Here’s an excerpt of the first speech:

…With an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball. And I am here to say this needs to stop. Short-term thinking and stale debates are not what this moment requires. Our focus must be on the basic economic issues that the matter most to you – the people we represent. And as Washington prepares to enter another budget debate, the stakes for our middle class could not be higher. The countries that are passive in the face of a global economy will lose the competition for good jobs and high living standards. That’s why America has to make the investments necessary to promote long-term growth and shared prosperity. Rebuilding our manufacturing base. Educating our workforce. Upgrading our transportation and information networks. That’s what we need to be talking about. That’s what Washington needs to be focused on.

And that’s why, over the next several weeks, in towns across this country, I will engage the American people in this debate. I will lay out my ideas for how we build on the cornerstones of what it means to be middle class in America, and what it takes to work your way into the middle class in America. Job security, with good wages and durable industries. A good education. A home to call your own. Affordable health care when you get sick. A secure retirement even if you’re not rich. Reducing poverty and inequality. Growing prosperity and opportunity.

So, who is it that is keeping America’s Middle Class from prospering?

I’ll give you a clue: His initials are B.H.O.

The Washington Times reports that

Under President Obama, the richest 10 percent were the only income group of Americans to see their median incomes rise, according to a survey released this week by the Federal Reserve.

The Fed data covered the years 2010-2013, during which period Mr. Obama constantly campaigned against income inequality and won re-election by painting his Republican rival as a tool of Wall Street plutocrats.

“Data from the 2013 [Survey of Consumer Finances] confirm that the shares of income and wealth held by affluent families are at modern historically high levels,” the report said in noting that the median income fell for every 10-percent grouping except the most affluent 10 percent. 

“The 2013 SCF reveals substantial disparities in the evolution of income and net worth since the previous time the survey was conducted, in 2010,” the report stated. The SCF is conducted by the Federal reserve triennially and compiles information about family incomes, credit use, net worth and finances.

The 2010-2013 SCF found that even though real gross domestic product grew by 2.1 percent and civilian unemployment fell from 9.9 percent to 7.5 percent, only families at “the very top of the income distribution saw widespread income gains,” though mean median income levels still lagged behind 2007 numbers.

The report comes just a week after AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the union group would not endorse any more Democrats that are following President Obama’s economic policy.

“We will call in and question all of the candidates,” he said. “One of our biggest concerns is who is the candidate’s economic team, because if the present economic team doesn’t change, you are going get the same results.”

The survey also found that family in the middle income bracket (40th to 90th percentiles) saw “very little” change in average real incomes and still have not recovered losses from 2010 and 2007. Families at the bottom of the income distribution continued to see “substantial declines” in average real incomes, a continuing trend from the previous two surveys.

The top percentile of Americans also increased their wealth share since 2010, corresponding to a loss in wealth for the bottom 90 percent of Americans, according to the Fed data.

“The wealth share of the top 3 percent climbed from 44.8 percent in 1989 to 51.8 percent in 2007 and 54.4 percent in 2013. … The share of wealth held by the bottom 90 percent fell from 33.2 percent in 1989 to24.7 percent in 2013,” the report stated.

The prosperous years during the Reagan Presidency marked a period of economic progress for Middle Class Americans. Middle Class Income increased 11 percent after adjustment for inflation, while nearly 20 million new jobs were created.

Those Liberal critics of the 1980s, who argue that the Middle Class shrank in number during those years, are half -right for the wrong reasons. The proportion of Middle Class Americans did indeed decline, but this reflected an upward movement of households into the high income category. Meanwhile, the proportion of Low Income Households declined, as more became middle class. The income growth during the Reagan Presidency increased the size of the pocketbooks of Americans at all income levels.

During Obama’s time in office, America’s major corporations have been hit with punitive measures, including high corporate tax rates and Obamacare, which has caused them to “down-size” their employee rolls and to relocate their call centers to companies like India, which has effected the rest of our economy.

Trickle-Down Economics was simply common sense. Capitalism is the engine that drives America’s economy.

When those who actually hire Americans are attacked by an Administration, naturally, those consequences are felt by those in lower economic strati (that’s you and me, boys and girls).

Obama’s “Trickle-Up” Economic Policy has been a miserable failure.

Because, as Lady Margaret Thatcher once said,

The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

Until He comes,

KJ

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

The Push For “Income Equality”: “From Each According to His Abilities, to Each According to His Needs”

Obama-Shrinks-2The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the laborer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights force decides. Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working-day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working-class. – Marx, Das Kapital, an excerpt from the personal blog of Rick Bookstaber, Research Principal, Office of Financial Research, (an office created by the Dodd-Frank Law) May 7, 2012

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American; she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own. – Second Inaugural Address of Barack Hussein Obama, January 21, 2013

On December 4. 2013, before he and his family left for a $4 million dollar Holiday Vacation, paid for by the citizens of the United States of America, which First Lady Michelle Obama has yet to return from, President Barack Hussein Obama delivered a speech on “Income Inequality”  to a handpicked group from the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress. Here is an excerpt,

As values of community broke down, and competitive pressure increased, businesses lobbied Washington to weaken unions and the value of the minimum wage. As a trickle-down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest, while investments in things that make us all richer, like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither. And for a certain period of time, we could ignore this weakening economic foundation, in part because more families were relying on two earners as women entered the workforce. We took on more debt financed by a juiced-up housing market. But when the music stopped, and the crisis hit, millions of families were stripped of whatever cushion they had left.

And the result is an economy that’s become profoundly unequal, and families that are more insecure. I’ll just give you a few statistics. Since 1979, when I graduated from high school, our productivity is up by more than 90 percent, but the income of the typical family has increased by less than eight percent. Since 1979, our economy has more than doubled in size, but most of that growth has flowed to a fortunate few.

The top 10 percent no longer takes in one-third of our income — it now takes half. Whereas in the past, the average CEO made about 20 to 30 times the income of the average worker, today’s CEO now makes 273 times more. And meanwhile, a family in the top 1 percent has a net worth 288 times higher than the typical family, which is a record for this country.

So the basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed. In fact, this trend towards growing inequality is not unique to America’s market economy. Across the developed world, inequality has increased. Some of you may have seen just last week, the Pope himself spoke about this at eloquent length. “How can it be,” he wrote, “that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”

But this increasing inequality is most pronounced in our country, and it challenges the very essence of who we are as a people. Understand we’ve never begrudged success in America. We aspire to it. We admire folks who start new businesses, create jobs, and invent the products that enrich our lives. And we expect them to be rewarded handsomely for it. In fact, we’ve often accepted more income inequality than many other nations for one big reason — because we were convinced that America is a place where even if you’re born with nothing, with a little hard work you can improve your own situation over time and build something better to leave your kids. As Lincoln once said, “While we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.”

The problem is that alongside increased inequality, we’ve seen diminished levels of upward mobility in recent years. A child born in the top 20 percent has about a 2-in-3 chance of staying at or near the top. A child born into the bottom 20 percent has a less than 1-in-20 shot at making it to the top. He’s 10 times likelier to stay where he is. In fact, statistics show not only that our levels of income inequality rank near countries like Jamaica and Argentina, but that it is harder today for a child born here in America to improve her station in life than it is for children in most of our wealthy allies — countries like Canada or Germany or France. They have greater mobility than we do, not less.

The idea that so many children are born into poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth is heartbreaking enough. But the idea that a child may never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care, or a community that views her future as their own, that should offend all of us and it should compel us to action. We are a better country than this.

Dr. Thomas Sowell, the brilliant American Economist (who just happens to be black) wrote the following profound statement in an article titled ” “Who Are the ‘1 Percent’?”, posted on nationalreview,com, on August 1, 2012

All sorts of statements are made in politics and in the media as if that top 1 percent is an enduring class of people, rather than an ever-changing collection of individuals who have a spike in their income in a particular year for one reason or another. Turnover in other income brackets is also substantial.

There is nothing mysterious about this. Most people start out at the bottom, in entry-level jobs, and their incomes rise over time as they acquire more skills and experience.

Politicians and media talking heads love to refer to people who are in the bottom 20 percent in income in a given year as “the poor.” But, following the same individuals for 10 or 15 years usually shows the great majority of those individuals moving into higher income brackets.

The number who reach the top 20 percent greatly exceeds the number still stuck in the bottom 20 percent over the years. But such mundane facts cannot compete for attention with the moral melodramas conjured up by politicians and the media when they discuss “the rich” and “the poor.”

There are people who are genuinely rich and genuinely poor, in the sense of having very high or very low incomes for most, if not all, of their lives. But “the rich” and “the poor” in this sense are unlikely to add up to even 10 percent of the population.

Ironically, those who make the most noise about income disparities or poverty contribute greatly to policies that promote both. The welfare state enables millions of people to meet their needs with little or no income-earning work on their part.

Most of the economic resources used by people in the bottom 20 percent come from sources other than their own incomes. There are veritable armies of middle-class people who make their livings transferring resources, in a variety of ways, from those who created those resources to those who live off them.

These transferrers exist in both government and private social-welfare institutions. They have every incentive to promote dependency, from which they benefit both professionally and psychically, and to imagine that they are creating social benefits.

For different reasons, both politicians and the media have incentives to spread misconceptions with statistics. So long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it.

With his “empire” and popularity rapidly tanking, Obama and his enablers have decided to ramp up the politic rhetoric used so well and so often by followers of Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky…and, not-so-coincidentally,  Community Organizers, as will:  the incendiary rhetoric of Class Warfare.

The harsh truth of the matter is the fact that America remains the Land of Opportunity…if you are willing, Pookie, to get your Cheetos-eating rear end up of the couch and work for it.

The Founding Fathers established a nation found on the principle that

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

“Income Equality” (i.e., Marxism) was never mentioned.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Happy May…errr…Labor Day

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

The 44th President of the United States appears to have that rule down pat.

In advance of a major Occupy rally planned for Tuesday, President Obama delivered a speech this [yesterday] morning filled with class warfare rhetoric.

The president warned union members that Republicans would rather give “rich folks” more tax breaks, than invest in the American worker.

“Republicans in Congress would rather put fewer of you to work rebuilding America than ask millionaires and billionaires to live without massive new tax cuts on top of the ones they’ve already gotten,” Obama declared in a speech to to construction union members at the Hilton hotel in Washington.

Obama added that Republicans’ economic plan depended on tax cuts for the rich and “dismantling your unions.”

“I mean, if you ask them, what’s their big economic plan in addition to tax cuts for rich folks, it’s dismantling your unions. After all you’ve done to build and protect the middle class, they make the argument you’re responsible for the problems facing the middle class,” Obama added.

The president praised the unionized middle class as the for contributing to an economy based on the middle class.

“You believed prosperity shouldn’t be reserved just for a privileged few; it should extend all the way from the boardroom all the way down to the factory floor.”

According to marxists.org:

Out of its traditions the American labor movement has given the international working class two fighting days which the revolutionary workers consider as mile posts and which they must pass each year on their way to ultimate victory. Those who were midwives at the birth of these “days” have renounced them as soon as they have acquired revolutionary meaning. The A. F. of L. helped with the inauguration of May Day. It has long expiated that sin against American capital and it is never held against it.

The Socialist Party, a close, even if poor, relation of the A. F. of L., must be considered as having contributed to the origin of International Women’s Day, celebrated each year on March 8. About twenty years ago the Socialist women of New York organized, in contradistinction to the bourgeois suffrage movement, a mass participation of proletarian women in the movement for woman suffrage. This particular action took place on March 8. The success of the New York demonstration led to the establishment of March 8 as Women’s Day on a national scale. The International Socialist Congress in 1910 made March 8 international.

With the granting of woman suffrage in the United States, March 8 was abandoned by the S. P., since the ballot and election to office has always been the alpha and omega of that party. The Russian working women did not forget March 8 and, following the October Revolution, rejuvenated this important fighting labor day. The Communist International made International Women’s Day again a living reality. As in the case of May 1, only the Communist parties are carrying on the traditions of March 8, with men and women workers jointly utilizing this day to call upon the proletarian women to take their place in the struggles beside the men workers.

For the May Day, 1923, edition of the Weekly Worker, C. E. Ruthenberg wrote: “May Day – the day which inspires fear in the hearts of the capitalists and hope in the workers – the workers the world over – will find the Communist movement this year stronger in the U. S. than at any time in its history…. The road is clear for greater achievements, and in the United States as elsewhere in the world the future belongs to Communism.” In a Weekly Worker of a generation before, Eugene V. Debs wrote in a May Day edition of the paper, published on April 27, 1907: “This is the first and only International Labor Day. It belongs to the working class and is dedicated to the Revolution.”

Bloomberg.com reports that the Occupy Wall Street movement is ready to celebrate today, in their own inimitable classless style.

Occupy Wall Street demonstrators, whose anti-greed message spread worldwide during an eight-week encampment in Lower Manhattan last year, plan marches across the globe today calling attention to what they say are abuses of power and wealth.

Organizers say they hope the coordinated events will mark a spring resurgence of the movement after a quiet winter. Calls for a general strike with no work, no school, no banking and no shopping have sprung up on websites in Toronto, Barcelona, London, Kuala Lumpur and Sydney, among hundreds of cities in North America, Europe and Asia.

In New York, Occupy Wall Street will join scores of labor organizations observing May 1, traditionally recognized as International Workers’ Day. They plan marches from Union Square to Lower Manhattan and a “pop-up occupation” of Bryant Park on Sixth Avenue, across the street from Bank of America’s Corp.’s 55-story tower.

“We call upon people to refrain from shopping, walk out of class, take the day off of work and other creative forms of resistance disrupting the status quo,” organizers said in an April 26 e-mail.

Occupy groups across the U.S. have protested economic disparity, decrying high foreclosure and unemployment rates that hurt average Americans while bankers and financial executives received bonuses and taxpayer-funded bailouts. In the past six months, similar groups, using social media and other tools, have sprung up in Europe, Asia and Latin America.

Alinsky and Marx would be very proud of these “useful idiots”.