You Want $15 an Hour for Flipping Burgers? There’s an Ap for That

From Singularity Hub:

No longer will they say, “He’s going to end up flipping burgers.” Because now, robots are taking even these ignobly esteemed jobs. Alpha machine from Momentum Machines cooks up a tasty burger with all the fixins. And it does it with such quality and efficiency it’ll produce “gourmet quality burgers at fast food prices.”

With a conveyor belt-type system the burgers are freshly ground, shaped and grilled to the customer’s liking. And only when the burger’s finished cooking does Alpha slice the tomatoes and pickles and place them on the burger as fresh as can be. Finally, the machine wraps the burger up for serving.

And while you fret over how many people you invited to the barbecue, Alpha churns out a painless 360 hamburgers per hour…

Might need just one employee just to monitor the machine…and, hey, they can even pay him $20 an hour…still doesn’t work out too well for the 90% of fast food workers who will be laid off.  Careful what you demand people, you just might get what you ask for…

You Want Fries With That Socialism?

A lot of fast food workers went out on a wildcat strike today in several American cities.  Fox News’ Niel Cavuto interviewed one of the strikers (via Gateway Pundit):

Shenita Simon: “Those that think we’re making so much money and if we follow a particular type of budget, I can’t afford to pay rent. I can’t afford to feed my children. I can’t even afford the healthcare for my husband. Things that you guys see as everyday life is luxury to me and it’s not fair… I say, why are you the companies, you the franchisees getting raises. You’re making billions and millions of dollars per year. Why can’t we barely survive? Why is it we who are employees, who work, who put in hard sweat, why can’t we survive? Why do we have to go hungry at night? Why can’t we pay rent? Eight dollars, seven twenty-five, seven fifty is not enough.

Neil Cavuto: Is it a fast-food company’s purpose and responsibility to meet pay, to keep up with the living standards of a given city? Is it really up to that organization?

Shenita Simon: It’s their responsibility. Because when they’re cutting our checks, not giving us lunch breaks, you’re not giving us benefits. When you’re doing illegal actions against us. Yes, it’s your responsibility. Because when we’re making the bare minimum, and you’re stealing from us. Of course, we can’t survive…

Indeed, you can’t – an adult with family responsibilities can’t make ends meet while working at a fast food joint at minimum wage.  Thing is, such a job is never going to be a job which can support someone with family responsibilities.  Such a job is either for a young, entry level worker just getting started in life, or for an elderly person supplementing retirement pay.

It is true that the fast food companies are making quite a lot of money – and you can bet dollars to donuts that the senior executives are rolling in pay and benefits.  But if you have ten workers at a fast food joint making $7.50 and hour and “win” your fight to increase pay to $15.00 an hour, all you’ll get is five or less workers manning the store…the other five will be replaced by automation.  No matter how you want to slice it up, flipping burgers is just not that valuable an occupation.  It is useful work.  It is work which needs to be done.  It, like all honest work, has inherent dignity.  But it is work which just about anyone can do – supply and demand; when there is a very large pool of potential workers for a particular job then there is no rational reason for high wages being paid.

Ms. Simon’s problem is not that fast food work is low paid – her problem is that she’s working there when her skill level should have long ago moved her in to a more difficult and highly paid line of work.  There are two explanations for why she hasn’t – and I don’t know which is the more prominent part in her life, and it doesn’t really matter:

1.  She’s messed up in her own life to the point where she’s stuck in a dead end, entry level job.

2.  The people who run our government – and whom she probably voted for – don’t like having a lot of jobs around which would allow someone like Ms. Simon, if she applied herself, to rise step by step up the employment ladder until she reaches a point where her wages afford a comfortable, middle class life for an adult with family responsibilities.

If Ms. Simon wanted to do something useful, she’d lead a protest demanding Obama stop blocking the Keystone pipeline…and she’d move to those areas of the country which are booming and thus have bags of blue collar jobs available for anyone who is willing to work hard and slowly move up the ladder of success.  But, she’s not in to that – either not in to challenging her liberal leaders, or not that in to investing the sweat equity necessary to move from minimum wage to middle class wage work.  She wants a free ride – no development of her skills; no challenge to her work ethic, but double the pay she’s getting now.

That is the essential pull of socialism for the lower class – a promise of getting a lot more for doing no more (or even less) than they are now.  Of course, if Ms. Simon and those like her really get their way, there won’t be fries with that socialism…not much work would get done, at all…especially as we’d all be too busy lining up for our potato rations…


Some really great points have been made in the comments and now I’ll step up and defend Ms. Simon a bit. She does, indeed, have a cockeyed view of the world and if she “wins”, then all she’ll do is lose…unless, of course, she becomes an apparatchik passing out the potato rations to the rest of us (socialist revolutionaries fall in to two categories – in the upper echelons, wanna-be Lenins; in the lower ranks those who essentially aspire to be bureaucrats or policemen). But, remember, the world she lives in has not been made by her – that she lives in a world where getting a decent education is becoming increasingly difficult and finding blue collar work with a future ever rarer is because of the design – conscious or not – of the Ruling Class. That this Ruling Class is largely made up of people whom Ms. Simon votes for – and which feeds her the terminology she uses in her battle – is neither here nor there; she is living in their world, and following their script.

In New York City rent control keeps rents high; a miserably bad education system is in the iron grip of the unions which entirely control the city government; high taxes discourage new business formation; various regulations and taxes make manufacturing within the city limits difficult to do at a profit; imported illegal labor ensures that a great deal of the entry-level jobs are priced genuinely too low for a legal American to live on (illegal immigrants are commonly – and illegally and unsafely – jammed very many in to each substandard housing unit); union control of the few genuinely productive areas left (especially the port) ensures that unless you’re juiced in with the union, you ain’t getting a job there. For someone like Ms. Simon, there isn’t much of a chance – she can’t get educated (even if she goes to school – even to college; they won’t teach her), she can’t start her own business, there aren’t any decent blue collar jobs for her to get…so, she’s working at McD’s and is frustrated – and then in the final, sick irony, she’s set out in to the streets by the rhetoric of the very Ruling Class which has set up a system where she is bound to fail, unless she becomes one of their little, Stalinist tools for continued control. Have pity on the poor lady – she knows not what she does.

We have to change this – we have to get in there and start “community organizing”…explaining to the Ms. Simons that her problem is, indeed, a rich, white oppressor…but it ain’t the redneck with his rebel flag painted on his truck…its the upper class liberal with his “equality” sticker on the back of his Prius.

A False Recovery, Part II

From Mish’s:

Inquiring minds are digging into the stunningly bad Quarter-Over-Quarter decline in wages and real wages across all sectors…

…The BLS notes “Unit labor costs in nonfarm businesses fell 4.3 percent in the first quarter of 2013, the combined effect of a 3.8 percent decrease in hourly compensation and the 0.5 percent increase in productivity. The decline in hourly compensation is the largest in the series, which begins in 1947.”…

This is just lousy.  Now, before any of you out there get all “that’s just GOPer doom and gloom”, Mike Shedlock (Mish) was firmly anti-Bush 2001-09 and stands entirely outside the GOP.  He’s not in any way, shape or form one of us.  He’s just a genuinely independent observer and economic analyst.  And his conclusion?

The Fed and Obama are both engaging in counterproductive policies that discourage hiring, especially hiring of full-time employees.

Of course Obama will respond by asking for a raise in minimum wage (giving further incentives to businesses to seek ways to get rid of employees), and the Fed will vow to keep interest rates low (enabling companies to borrow money for next to nothing to do just that).

Between the Federal Reserve (entirely committed to Keynesian idiocy) and Obama (also entirely committed to Keynesian idiocy), the ability of the United States to recover from the 2008 crash has been crushed.  And to make it all worse, the twin policies of Bernanke and Obama are setting us strait on the path to renewed, and much worse, crash.  The only way we can get out of this mess is to produce our way out of it – by creating wealth.  That takes making, mining and growing things in a free market…not subsidizing green energy scams or dinosaur auto makers; not printing more fake money and piling up more debt; not by re-paving an already paved road and hiring more diversity coordinators for the Department of Departmental Affairs.



A False Recovery

Lately, our liberals have been pumped over the stock market rising to record highs – to them (you know, the people who were occupying Wall Street in 2012), this is proof positive that Obama’s economic policies have worked.  I’ve been pointing out since 2009 that pumping fake money in to the economy merely allows everyone to hide the true economic facts and that eventually there will be a renewed collapse.  This inevitable collapse will be worse than the original crash as there is more debt and fake money infecting the economy.  I quite honestly didn’t expect that Bernanke and Obama could keep the ball in the air this long – I also didn’t think that anyone, not even a Ruling Class bankster like Bernanke, would be stupid enough (apparently) to think that he can print money forever.  These days, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Dow hits 20,000 – after all, when the latest ISM – Manufacturing report came out today showing economic contraction, the stock markets initially surged…likely because people believe that bad news means Bernanke will print even more, thus shoving stock prices higher.  But, still, reality is out there.

The reality is that Europe is in a crushing recession – indeed, with youth unemployment in some countries in the 50% range, its in a crushing Great Depression.  China’s economy wobbles along mired in hidden debt and massive corruption (and very fake official government economic reports).  And, I believe, we are in recession – and a recession with a nasty stock market and real estate bubble (sound familiar?).  This article over at Zero Hedge is the best description of our circumstances – and just why a high Dow isn’t a sign of economic health.  I heartily recommend reading it.  It concludes thusly:

A good case can be made for the fact that there is no recovery and that we are just beginning our decline. The efforts of government merely served to drive us more deeply into debt and stave off normal economic healing. If this observation is correct, all that has been accomplished is a postponement and accentuation of the pain to come. My economic sense tells me that is the case.

Whether you accept this conclusion or not, don’t be fooled by the performance of the stock market. There is little other than inflationary Fed policy to justify financial asset prices. Furthermore, recent performance really isn’t special as those living through the 1930s learned. In fact, what has happened recently doesn’t even measure up to the initial rebound that occurred during the Great Depression.

Time will come when this cannot be sustained.  Today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year.  Pain cannot be avoided – a crash must and will come and it will hurt.  The only thing we can do is try to get some policies which will allow us to climb out of it swiftly.  Unfortunately, it is impossible for us to get such policies on a national scale until Obama leaves office.

The Food Stamp President

It just keeps getting worse and worse:

Record Dow, record S&P, record debt, record plunge in gold, and now: record US households on foodstamps. What’s not to like. While today’s gold selloff may be confusing to everyone, one can scratch off some 23,087,886 US households, or the number that according to the USDA, were on foodstamps in January and just happen to be a fresh all time high, as the likely sellers, especially when one considers that the average monthly benefit to each household dropped to a record low of $274.04. This number probably ignores, for good reason, the once every four years fringe benefits of Obamaphones and other such made in China trinkets…

Serious question for those who voted for Obama – is this what you voted for?  Ever more people on welfare while the rich get richer and more Chinese garbage gets exported to the United States?  Did you consider the possibility – even for a moment – that just perhaps someone else might be able to do a better job at it?  Or was it always and ever going to be a vote for Obama?  If so, why?  Because you just wanted to stick it to us Republicans?  Because you were afraid to vote against our first black President?  Because you were actually worried that Romney was going to go after your birth control?  Tell us what motivated you last November…

Recovery? Yeah, Whatever…

From Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis:

The surge in employment fueled by part-time jobs and the Obamacare effect may finally be over. Although the establishment survey showed a gain of 88,000 jobs, the household survey, off which the unemployment rate is based, showed a loss of 206,000 jobs.

The unemployment rate edged lower by .1% because a whopping 496,000 people dropped out of the labor force.

Last month, voluntary part-time employment rose by a reported 446,000. It’s plain to see that last month’s numbers were a statistical aberration. This was a miserable jobs report from every angle….

Keep that clearly in mind – the unemployment rate dropped to 7.6% in a month when the source for the 7.6% figure showed a loss of 206,000 jobs.  The only reason it dropped – rather than shooting up – is because nearly half a million people dropped out of the labor force.  The labor force participation rate is now back to 1970’s levels.

This, my friends, is a dying economy.  Dying more slowly here than in Europe because parts of the country are still rationally governed (places like Texas and Florida, for instance), but still dying because of a sea of debt and fake money.Europe, too, was kept afloat for a while by France and Germany…how long can Texas and Florida make up for California and New York?

UPDATE:  Given that two more Democrat Senators have “evolved” (between November and April, astoundingly!) on gay marriage, Kruiser is dead on:

Gay marry the jobs report, that’s Plan B today.

Stockman: The End is Nigh!

Quoting former Reagan OMB director Stockman over at Pajamas Media:

…The state-wreck ahead is a far cry from the “Great Moderation” proclaimed in 2004 by Mr. Bernanke, who predicted that prosperity would be everlasting because the Fed had tamed the business cycle and, as late as March 2007, testified that the impact of the subprime meltdown “seems likely to be contained.” Instead of moderation, what’s at hand is a Great Deformation, arising from a rogue central bank that has abetted the Wall Street casino, crucified savers on a cross of zero interest rates and fueled a global commodity bubble that erodes Main Street living standards through rising food and energy prices — a form of inflation that the Fed fecklessly disregards in calculating inflation.

These policies have brought America to an end-stage metastasis. The way out would be so radical it can’t happen. It would necessitate a sweeping divorce of the state and the market economy. It would require a renunciation of crony capitalism and its first cousin: Keynesian economics in all its forms. The state would need to get out of the business of imperial hubris, economic uplift and social insurance and shift its focus to managing and financing an effective, affordable, means-tested safety net…

Stockman notes that no one in power is going to do any of the things necessary to fix the problem – last week, I read a quote attributed to the Prime Minister of Luxemburg which went along the lines of, “we all know what needs to be done, but we don’t know how to get re-elected after we do it”.  Whether or not the PM said any such thing, it is precisely why our Ruling Class won’t make the necessary changes – because to make them means that whomever does it loses the next election, big time.  I agree with Stockman on what is wrong and why it won’t be fixed – I don’t agree in his laying a great deal of the blame for changing the budget dynamic on Reagan, mostly because Stockman still carries a grudge from waaaay back when…Reagan rejected some of Stockman’s policy ideas in the mid-80’s and Stockman hasn’t quite gotten over it, but his claim that Reagan brought us to fiscal irresponsibility is absurd given that Social Security – the first step in complete fiscal irresponsibility – came about nearly 50 years before Reagan.  That said, the basic thrust that things are collapsing and that it has been a bi-partisan effort to wreck things is completely true.

What do to?  Stockman advises to get out of stocks and bonds and in to cash – not so sure that is the way to go because our cash is already devaluing and will do more so as time goes on with Bernanke continuing to print.  Still, getting out of debt and having as much cash on hand as possible is a good idea – gold, silver and a supply of canned goods also isn’t a bad idea, either.  The main thing is to be prepared for a very rough time, and not too long in the future.  How long?  I don’t know.  No one does.  Could happen tomorrow – could hold off for five years.   Something will trigger the final collapse – our entire economic world is based upon fake money and debt and in a very real sense, the amount of debt in the world exceeds the ability of the entire world to pay for it. And the thing about debt that can’t be repaid is that it doesn’t get repaid.

I’m not at all worried or frightened about this.  We’re going to pay the piper for 80 years of sheer idiocy in government and economics.  A better and wiser people will emerge from the collapse.

UPDATE:  Stockton, CA, goes bankrupt.

UPDATE II:  Eurozone unemployment hits 12%.  Glad that we haven’t gone down their route of fake money and massive debt…oh, wait…

Can You Guess Who?

I got this idea from a member of the BlogsforVictory Google Group.  I’ve redacted details that would give the answer away.

WITH THE FEDERAL DEBT spiraling out of control, many Americans sense an urgent need to find a political leader who is able to say “no” to spending. Yet they fear that finding such a leader is impossible. Conservatives long for another Ronald Reagan. But is Reagan the right model? He was of course a tax cutter, reducing the top marginal rate from 70 to 28 percent. But his tax cuts—which vindicated supply-side economics by vastly increasing federal revenue—were bought partly through a bargain with Democrats who were eager to spend that revenue. Reagan was no budget cutter—indeed, the federal budget rose by over a third during his administration.

An alternative model for conservatives is [redacted]. President from [redacted], [Redacted] sustained a budget surplus and left office with a smaller budget than the one he inherited. Over the same period, America experienced a proliferation of jobs, a dramatic increase in the standard of living, higher wages, and three to four percent annual economic growth. And the key to this was [redacted] penchant for saying “no.” If Reagan was the Great Communicator, [redacted] was the Great Refrainer.
Following [redacted], the federal debt stood ten times higher than before the [redacted], and it was widely understood that the debt burden would become unbearable if interest rates rose. At the same time, the top income tax rate was over 70 percent, veterans were having trouble finding work, prices had risen while wages lagged, and workers in Seattle, New York, and Boston were talking revolution and taking to the streets. The [redacted] administration had nationalized the railroads for a time at the end of the [redacted], and had encouraged stock exchanges to shut down for a time, and Progressives were now pushing for state or even federal control of water power and electricity. The business outlook was grim, and one of the biggest underlying problems was the lack of an orderly budgeting process: Congress brought proposals to the White House willy-nilly, and they were customarily approved.

The Republican Party’s response in the [redacted] election was to campaign for smaller government and for a return to what its presidential candidate, [redacted], dubbed “normalcy”—a curtailing of government interference in the economy to create a predictable environment in which business could confidently operate. [Redacted], a Massachusetts governor who had gained a national reputation by facing down a Boston police strike—“There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time,” he had declared—was chosen to be [redacted] running mate. And following their victory, [redacted] inaugural address set a different tone from that of the outgoing [redacted] administration (and from that of the Obama administration today): “No altered system,” [redacted] said, “will work a miracle. Any wild experiment will only add to the confusion. Our best assurance lies in efficient administration of our proven system.”

One of [redacted] first steps was to shepherd through Congress the Budget and Accounting Act of [redacted], under which the executive branch gained authority over and took responsibility for the budget, even to the point of being able to impound money after it was budgeted. This legislation also gave the executive branch a special budget bureau—the forerunner to today’s Office of Management and Budget—over which [redacted] named a flamboyant Brigadier General, [redacted], as director. Together they proceeded to summon department staff and their bosses to semiannual meetings at Continental Hall, where [redacted] cajoled and shamed them into making spending cuts. In addition, [redacted] pushed through a tax cut, lowering the top rate to 58 percent; and in a move toward privatization, he proposed to sell off naval petroleum reserves in Wyoming to private companies.

Is there any doubt that history repeats itself?  Read the whole piece here, and pray that another [redacted] comes along soon.

Sequestration Stance

The anticipated cuts, or more accurately, the slow down in growth rates of federal government spending as a result of the Obama endorsed Sequestration HAS to happen, and if the GOP folds, they will hasten their own demise. Despite the doomsday rhetoric of President Gloom, a 2.4% cut in spending will hardly make planes fall out of the sky, and will be a needed lessen in fiscal restraint that the federal government, and Obama ironically imposed on themselves in 2011. It’s important to note that even after the $85 billion in cuts, the federal government will still be spending more in FY2013 than they did in FY2012, yet Obama and the Democrats will have us believe that the federal government is so lean, so efficient, that the only choice they have will be to lay off first responders and allow children to go hungry – which should also tell you a lot Obama’s priorities. First of all, he doesn’t acknowledge that most first responders are paid for by their local municipalities and not by the federal government, and rather than scale back the Dept. of Education, the Dept. of Energy, or the Dept. of Labor just to name a few of the incredibly bloated federal bureaucracies, he will choose to release prisoners, and let children go without Head Start Programs. Is it possible to have a more divisive, more bitter, more incompetent President, with more contempt for America? I don’t think so. Think about this – wages have been stagnant, if not in decline since 2008, gas prices have nearly doubled, taxes have gone up, GDP has been revised to .1% in Q4 2012 and not expected to be much better in Q1 2013, grocery prices are increasing as a result of fuel prices, unemployment is 8% and really 10%+ if you’re actually counting and business investment in new facilities and employment is on hold. So Obama expects all of us to make do with less, but despite almost doubling federal expenditures in the last 4 years, he wants us to believe that any slight reduction will result in chaos and force him to cut children off. As I said, the sequestration cuts MUST happen but with spineless leaders like McConnell and Boehner, I am not holding out much hope.

One last item to note, our resident liberals have been awfully quiet on threads related to spending, unemployment, and the overall economy, but bring up gay marriage and they are out in force. Just exactly how Obama wants them to be – distracted by issues of little consequence.

Dystopia–In His Own Words.

Just prior to the 2008 elections, Barack Obama boldly stated,

“We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” (October 30, 2008)

Many among my conservative friends took that to be so much fluff; pretty much liberal boilerplate consistent with his whole “Hope and Change” campaign message.  Given, however, Obama’s background, cutting his teeth with the radical leftists/communists of his day (i.e., Frank Marshall Davis, Bernadine Dorn, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright) I believe I was one of the relative few that took him at his word.  Unlike most of America, conservatives such as myself and others who actually took the time to vet Obama, knew that background and worldview mattered, and that Obama’s past gave more than a glimpse of how he intended to govern in the present.

When Obama uttered those words, “.. fundamentally transform AmericaI knew he meant it. It was Obama himself who stated (emphases added),

“As radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.  It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least, as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative libertiesSays what the States can’t do to you; says what the Federal Government can’t do to you, but doesn’t state what the Federal government or State Government must do on your behalf.”  (Barack Obama, June 18, 2001).

There is no question that Barack Obama was unhappy with his perception of unequal distribution of wealth that America so unfairly championed, and that he wanted to transform this nation into something more ‘equitable’ in his eyes.  The question was how, and to what extent.  Just how does one “fundamentally”  transform a nation whose very basis for existence is freedom, itself?  The only feasible answer is to transform that already-free nation, into a nation with fewer freedoms.  Given Dinesh D’Souza’s brilliant insights as to Obama’s worldview engendered by his past, one knew that Obama’s absolute contempt for what he saw as America’s unequal distribution of wealth would result in his promoting policies that would necessarily stifle economic growth.   Obama’s America would no longer be one of unbridled economic opportunity; rather, America would be a nation of egalitarian outcomes, regardless of effort; to coin a phrase, to each, according to his needs; from each, according to his means.  

As a means of bringing about this transformation, America could no longer be a free nation.  No where as free, at least, as it was at the time of he assumed his presidency.  Liberties would need to be forsaken to bring about his vision of utopia.  The free market system would need to be reined in, and done so in no small measure.   Obama would have four years, eight at most, to make this happen.  This transformation would need to be done quickly, and in a big way.

Enter Obamacare, America’s first stop on its train ride to Utopia. Against the wishes of 60-70 percent of Americans, and without the vetting of congressional legislators who rammed through the legislation, the United States Federal Government took control of a full one-seventh of the American economy, which had the net effect of driving up the cost of health care for all involved,  taking away freedom of choice, relegating freedom of conscience incompatible with the party line to irrelevancy, while at the same time having the no-doubt intended effect of casting a chilling pall on America’s ability to sustain economic growth and prosperity.  For those who wish to argue regarding this latter point, how better to right the wrongs of the perceived injustice of unequally-distributed wealth than to stifle the engine that creates such wealth?

As I’ve said, Obamacare is but stop one on America’s train ride to Obama’s Dystopia.  Obama’s seeming assault on everything traditional America has held dear for centuries appears to have taken on epidemic proportions.  Remember- Obama only has three and three-quarter years left.  Those who haven’t yet felt the pinch of his “transformations,” most likely have not yet realized that they, too, have been pinched.   Obama’s willing media accomplices can only cover for him for so long before a critical mass of Americans, admittedly as dull as many of them are, will start to put two-and-two together and finally determine that the hopey-changey unicorn jockey they voted for may actually have had something to do with the plight in which they suddenly find themselves.

Then what?

When the critical mass of Americans finally wake up one morning, to find that they have been played as chumps, they are liable to get a bit–shall we say, testy. When this inevitability finally does come home to roost, The TEA party protests that grew out of Rick Santelli’s historic February, 2009 rant will no doubt look like a series of school pep assemblies.   Such civil unrest would certainly be difficult to quell, and will no doubt be yet another bump in the tracks on the way to Obama’s Dystopian dream.

What to do, what do do? You can’t just sick the military after the troublemakers. Well, you could, I suppose, but then you risk pissing off your fellow travelers who have had a history of contempt for men and women in uniform.

What to do??

Since, at least philosophy- and policy-wise, one can take Obama at his word, one may get a clue as to Obama’s plans by again, studying his own non-TelePrompter inspired rhetoric:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.  We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”   -Barack Obama, July, 2008.

Yeah- remember that phrase?  Neither did a lot of other people.  Like the rest of Obama’s sordid past and rhetoric that if brought to the light of day would have rendered his election impossible, The media (true to their sycophantic nature) pretty much glossed over that little tidbit.  A powerful Civilian security force. Remind you of anyone?

So when you see articles like this, or like this, or like this, and then think, aww–Leo–take off that tinfoil hat!  You’re just blowing smoke.  That would never really happen here.  There’s no way.

Just remember.  I didn’t put those words into Barack Obama’s mouth.

He did.